The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Any thoughts?

[Philo & Gunge]

Since we got into a talk about Hercules, why not a thread about it's seldom-talked about predecessor?

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I actually love this movie. Definitely a huge step-up from Pocahontas and [for me] just a step below the "big 4" Disney Renaissance films. I think the score is one of the best of the 90's Disney era, it actually feels like a musical rather than a "let's-just-burst-into-song-out-of-nowhere" deal (to be fair, some Broadway musicals are victims of that, too... I'm looking at you Hello Dolly!). I like all the songs in the movie [yes, even "A Guy Like You"] except "The Court of Miracles" (I don't know, I guess it's just because it's near of the end of the movie after all the other great songs).

I will say one thing, though, the movie has an extremely hard time balancing humor and drama. Don't get me wrong, I do like the gargoyles (maybe it just comes with being a Seinfeld fan) and they are hilarious but they don't fit with the rest of the movie. One minute you could be hearing the goat nodding his head with the trombone gobble sound effect to Frollo singing "Hellfire" the next. It's just a bit hard to swallow with the bipolar pace the movie goes in. But that's my complaint about it, other than that, it's a great and hits pretty close to home for me at least.

[The "Chase"]

Yeah, I'm with you P&G, even with the whole comedy/drama problem this movie had. Still, definitively one of the most underrated Disney films ever (and if not, then probably the most underrated 90's Disney movie). Yeah, it's not one of the best Disney films, but it really doesn't deserve all the hate it gets.

I mean, you gotta admit, at least this film has the awesome Judge Frollo, thanks to having one the best villains songs ever and having Tony Jay voice him and that he was actually a GOOD villain.

And you know, I been thinking that we can talk about more seldomly talked Disney films if you guys like these types of threads...

[nickramer]

It's okay. They sorta put some their poetic license in their ending, though.

And while i wouldn't mind doing some more threads of these, I don't think it would be a good idea for most of the others, since I know how much they hate these films. Some more than others. I get pretty dressed on some of the post of the last thread.

It's going to be the same rant over and over.:rolleyes:

[looneytooney]

This was one of the first movies I saw in a theater when I was about 4. I actually did a school play on 'Quazimodo' and was told to stay away from this version because it differed greatly from the play (except the talking gargoyles).

I've grown to love this movie much more than I ever have when I was a kid. I gotta ask, how did this get a G-rating? With that Hellfire song, I think the MPAA were asleep at the switch there.

[Glowworm]

Haven't seen this one since I was a kid-I think most of the plot went waaaay over my head. I admit that I actually use to laugh when Quasi's hump was exposed-I'm ashamed of that. I loved the old gypsy man continuously being set free-only to fall into another problem!


I also had NO idea that of the trio of gargoyles-Laverne was actually female-I thought she was an old man! That and I always forgot her name...

I think I liked it though-but as I said before I was quite young only 7.


Also, slightly off topic but when I saw the movie for the second time with my mom and brother(first time was at camp) the wrong movie was put on-I almost saw "Bordello of Blood":D I'm not kidding.

[cartoonfan4ever]

I like the movie. It had good songs and Judge Frollo is a good character. The gargoyles were ok but not great (although they did have good moments).

[Matthew Hunter]

I hate it. They took a very dark, twisted story and made it into the typical Disney late 80's/early 90's musical. Some stories just weren't meant for the Disney treatment! Maybe most of all I hated the idea of the talking gargoyles. Not only were they designed poorly (I've been to Notre Dame Cathedral, most of the gargoyle sculptures actually have legs!) but they were completely absurd and unnecessary.

Nearly all of the 90's Disney movies had talkative sidekicks...but most were believable in the context of the film. "Beauty and the Beast" had the candlestick, clock, and other objects-cursed-to-life, "Little Mermaid" had Sebastian the crab and Flounder (who looked nothing like a flounder!). "Lion King" had Timon and Pumbaa. What made those characters so memorable, though, is that they played significant roles in the plot, and were more than just a vehicle for comic relief. Look at "Aladdin" for example...could the title character have gotten anywhere without the Genie, the magic carpet, or Abu the monkey? And if you want to delve into "WTF" territory, check out "Aladdin: The Return of Jafar", a direct-to-video sequel in which the main vehicle for the story is Jafar's parrot, Iago! (Actually an entertaining story, but the animation is terrible.)

the gargoyles in "Hunchback" are not only absurd, they don 't really do much other than give Quasimodo someone to talk to, just so kids wouldn't get bored. Because, of course, we all know that kids can't be burdened with the idea of a deformed, abused slave to cruel and corrupt religious officials being LONELY...

[pudealee]

Hee hee...(parental guidance suggested)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYqnfSK1vdI

[Brandon Panther]

The movie has some great songs and music, you can't deny that. I don't think it's that horrible of a film.

I would actually have to say that story-wise, the Disney crew seemed to have a difficult time deciding whether Clopin (the leader of the Gypsies) should have been a villain or a good guy, because I swear it seems like he alternates between both sides throughout the film.

Random trivia fact: Laverne was Mary Wickes' final role, PLUS Laverne is possibly the one Disney character to be voiced by 3 actors in a single film. Laverne was voiced by three different actresses in the entire movie. mary Wickes, Jane Withers, and I forget the third actress.

[looneytooney]

And if you want to delve into "WTF" territory, check out "Aladdin: The Return of Jafar", a direct-to-video sequel in which the main vehicle for the story is Jafar's parrot, Iago! (Actually an entertaining story, but the animation is terrible.)

You ever see "King of Thieves"? It's the same kind of deal, except Robin Williams came back as the Genie. In fact, that was the only good thing about it.

[FleischerFan]

Hunchback was a huge disappointment for me. I think it stands with the very worst of Disney feature-length animation.

I remember, when watching it, thinking: "Who is this film aimed at?" Most of the story is a downer and the hero doesn't get the girl - so the traditional kiddie Disney audience isn't going to like it. And the silly Disney sidekicks and schtick will alienate the people who might like the serious side of the story.

My daughter and stepson were just the right age for Disney's renaissance. My daughter being born the year The Little Mermaid came out and my stepson being born a year later.

Hunchback was the first Disney cartoon they hated. My parents (their grandparents) bought them Hunchback toys that Christmas and those became the first Christmas gifts the kids wanted to exchange for something else.

Previously, we had a house loaded with Ariel, Belle, Beast, Aladdin, Lion King, etc.

I have always wondered why - when Disney had such great success with the classic fairy tales like Mermaid, Beauty, & Aladdin, they deliberately chose to avoid that same territory for more than 20 years and instead turned to some of the most perplexing subject matter.


BTW, when it comes to the structure of musical comedy, I will disagree as well.

The late Howard Ashman was a genius at this. The three films he supervised story for as well as writing the lyrics for (Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast, and Aladdin) have, to me, the strongest possible connection between the songs and the stories. I find the songs are always motivated by the plot and usually do what great songs in muscials do - give us more insight into the characters' personalities and inner thoughts.

[Philo & Gunge]

the gargoyles in "Hunchback" are not only absurd, they don 't really do much other than give Quasimodo someone to talk to, just so kids wouldn't get bored. Because, of course, we all know that kids can't be burdened with the idea of a deformed, abused slave to cruel and corrupt religious officials being LONELY...

If I'm correct, the filmmakers' intentions with the gargoyles were to emphasize Quasimodo's loneliness. Regardless, I really do agree with what your saying.

[Jack G.]

I was annoyed that they turned Dom Claude Frollo, an Archdeacon, into a judge.

Apparently Disney was afraid that having a twisted religous man would offend people -
I remember reading about that when the movie was released.

[jonmayo15]

I've always viewed it (or not) as a complete failure.

[Mr. Semaj]

Can't really blame those who hate this film.

After having made such an astounding comeback, capped off with The Lion King, Disney seemed to be under the pressure to follow-up on these successes. There was the story of how Beauty and the Beast's Best Picture Oscar nom motivated Jeffrey Katzenberg to make the story for Pocahontas more serious, in hopes of winning a Best Picture Oscar.

It seemed with that line of thinking, Disney faced a dilemma. They could either stay the course with their successes, at the risk of boring their audience after a while (which was the problem they faced in the early 80's), or they could take new routes to keep things fresh, but confuse and alienate their audience that relied on familiarity. It felt, over the next decade, Disney would attempt both at the same time with varying degrees of success.

With The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I give them credit for trying something different with the story, to challenge those who identify Disney with just the sugar-coated fairy tales. But there was nothing about the new route they took that compelled me to see it when it came out.

[Marty26]

Can't really blame those who hate this film.

After having made such an astounding comeback, capped off with The Lion King, Disney seemed to be under the pressure to follow-up on these successes. There was the story of how Beauty and the Beast's Best Picture Oscar nom motivated Jeffrey Katzenberg to make the story for Pocahontas more serious, in hopes of winning a Best Picture Oscar.

It seemed with that line of thinking, Disney faced a dilemma. They could either stay the course with their successes, at the risk of boring their audience after a while (which was the problem they faced in the early 80's), or they could take new routes to keep things fresh, but confuse and alienate their audience that relied on familiarity. It felt, over the next decade, Disney would attempt both at the same time with varying degrees of success.

With The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I give them credit for trying something different with the story, to challenge those who identify Disney with just the sugar-coated fairy tales. But there was nothing about the new route they took that compelled me to see it when it came out.

I always thought Pocahontas was supposed to please the PC crowd. Anybody who's ever studied uncensored Native American history knows that the Native Americans weren't nearly as innocent and "gentle" as that movie made them seem...

(although her Paint With All The Colors Of The Wind song is admittedly a guilty pleasure of mine :o )

[Treadwell]

One of those "wasted potential" films. What's good is great. But the rest...

Agreed about the gargoyles. Completely out of place, and they kill whatever gravitas or momentum the film manages to build. Not to mention annoying in any context.

The character animation of the leads is beautiful. Frollo's Hellfire sequence is very effective. As well as Esmerelda's dancing.

Much ballyhoo was made in the promotional material about a CG model of Notre Dame having been made. And then it's used in about TWO shots. Most everything else was flat/traditional multiplane (nothing wrong with that).

Also an early use of CG-generated characters for crowd/background. That didn't bother me too much, although they were crude. Just fine for long shots. Unfortunately, in some shots they were WAY too close to camera. Just a few feet behind traditionally animated characters. They did not stand up to such close scrutiny--not in design, not in detail, and certainly not in movement.

[zavkram]

I saw it when it first came out and didn't like it. I agree that the Gargoyle characters should have been given more to do within the storyline. I disliked the character-design on Kevin Kline's character (his nose, in particular, was unappealing). I honestly can't remember even one song from the film.

My own opinion is that Disney hasn't made a good 2-D animated feature since Beauty and the Beast (and even that one had a few flaws in it) and Aladdin.

[Mac]

Disney kind of got into a muddle after The Lion King. After all the critical and financial success of Mermaid, Beast and Aladdin it seemed that they were keen to keep pushing the medium forward by making 'important' and 'artful' films which resulted in films like Pocahontas and Hunchback. However it seems they were reluctant to ditch were already becoming formulaic clichés. Everything had to stay kid-friendly, there had to be 'funny' sidekicks, there had to be songs. As people here have already said, it's hard to see who a film like 'Hunchback' is aimed at. If you look at it as one complete film it doesn't really hold together.

It's a shame really. I can imagine people at Disney looking at the slate of films lined up after Lion King. First there's gonna be 'Pocahontas' it's going to be so beautiful and wondrous people will be in awe of this amazing piece of art. Then there's gonna be 'Hunchback' - like nothing we've ever done before - people will find the story so powerful and moving will be captivated by the unique way it is told through animation. Then we've got 'Hercules' a film that will be so hilarious everyone will wet their pants, it won't look like any film we've done with astounding art direction and graphics.

And of course theses films couldn't live up to the grandiose potential. They all relied on the formulas of the preceding 'Disney brand' animated features in terms of art, characters and story telling. And they wound up being tacky enough to each have their own cheapo video sequel or TV series.

Hunchback and the other post Lion King films suffered from always trying to be something, instead of an artist with a real point to make or story to tell. They tried to be beautiful with Pocahontas, they tried to be dramatic with Hunchback and they tried to be hip with Hercules. But at the same time they tried to be really formulaic 'Disney' and it kept falling flat.

I think the reason for the dissatisfaction associated with Hunchback, Hercules and the rest can be summed up with this quote from Thomas Shumacher who was then the head of Disney Feature Animation:
"Walt said our films are about three things: story, story, story. Fact is they're not."

[Douglas E.]

I really like "Hunchback", I think the drama, and humor work out pretty well. It's not perfect, but it's still enjoyable. My only complaints are
a. Almost all of the songs feel "tacked on." Unlike other great Disney movies, most of the songs, with the exception of "God Help the Outcasts, and "Hellfire", feel like they were just thrown in there for the sake of singing.
b. Rated "G?"

-Doug

[MikeBSG]

I never really liked this one, and I have to say that I never have thought of it much since I first saw it.

I think the 1939 "Hunchback" is a terrific film, and turning the story into an animated cartoon added nothing.

I remember reading a "New Yorker" review of Disney's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" in which the reviewer said something like "as I listened to the villain sing about forbidden lust, I got the impression the Disney people have no idea who they are making their movies for." That probably sums up the movie best.

[Jack]

I never cared for "Hunchback of Notre Dame," since it doesn't really know who its audience is. It's not really comedic enough, nor dramatic enough, nor it is it faithful enough to the source material. I probably watched it a couple times and then never again.

I normally see people praise the Hellfire sequence, which is quite nice and really the only song I recall from the movie. I especially like how it contrasts Frodo's lyrics with the chanted Confeteor and Kyrie (though, you would have to know what they mean in English to really get it, I suppose).

[Treadwell]

the reviewer said something like "as I listened to the villain sing about forbidden lust, I got the impression the Disney people have no idea who they are making their movies for."

I think that says more about the reviewer's preconceived notion that animation is for kiddies than it does Disney's intent.

[Niagara Fool]

While certainly not the worst of the Disney films (sorry, that honor goes to Home on the Range), Hunchback is something of a disappointment.

After the string of big hits in the late 80s-90s, Disney kind of went through a bit of a dry patch in the mid 1990s.

Of the three mid-1990s films, Hunchback sits somewhat in the middle. It wasn't quite as good as Pocahontas, but it definitely was better than Hercules.

We get the gargoyle sidekicks to provide humorous moments and a nice, tidy ending. Quaismodo should be a very tragic sort of character, and we just don't get that in the film. Quasi seem a little too well-adjusted and happy living in the cathedral, ringing his bell and hanging out with his gargoyle friends.

That being said, I do think this works better than Hercules, where I felt the humor was way too broad and basically took center stage. Still, I can't get over the fact that these mid-1990s Disney films just aren't up to the level of a Lion King or Aladdin. For that matter, subsequent films like Mulan and Tarzan were much better as well.

For lack of a better way to describe Hunchback, it isn't the worst thing Disney's ever released but it also isn't anywhere near the best.

[aalong64]

I thought the Gargoyles were a horrible addition. I understand that they wanted to make it appeal to kids, but they weren't funny at all, and they didn't fit with the story either. I wanted to like them because I like Jason Alexander, but they just didn't do anything that amused me. And that 'female' one was just weird. I doubt most people even realized she was supposed to be a girl. I thought it was an old man or something. I didn't realize it was a woman until I read it online. It was hard to enjoy because just when you were getting set in the mood for a comedy scene, it would change to a dramatic scene, and vice versa. The tone was too schizophrenic for my tastes. Perhaps rather than stuff the story full of weird unneccessary characters, they should've just reconsidered and asked themselves "isn't there ANY other story that might be more appropriate for a film mainly aimed at children?"

[FleischerFan]

I think that says more about the reviewer's preconceived notion that animation is for kiddies than it does Disney's intent.Why would you say that when many here (who are obviously animations fans who are not "kiddies") have come to the same comclusion?

Hunchback was too serious to be pure kiddie fare (as I previously posted, my kids hated it), yet it had the same elements (the comic gargoyles, the songs) of the traditional Disney features and was marketed that way too - with Happy Meals, Underoos and all the rest.

The reviewers's impression was exactly the same as mine. Who was Hunchback aimed at?