Hunchback of Notre Dame....pure genius

[ichabod]

how can you rank tripe like Home on the Range higher? That is by far the worse of the "classics".

[incandescent with rage] Must... refrain... from.... using.... abusive... language![/incandescent with rage]

Anyway, I just noticed that the pics are a bit squishy, but it's just the what happens with a widescreen film on my capture thing. weird.

and I was too lazy to unsquish them, or wait for the larger versions to upload to photobucket.

[Prince Eric]

Saying The Hunchback of Notra Dame is a work of "genius," or "brilliant," or a "materpiece" is a bit of an overstatement. Let's put things into perspective and stop using unnecessary adjectives. There are some of us who may have very special feelings for certain films, and we're personally connected with them, so our love for a film can be slightly more than what it's actually worth. It's what our individual Top 10 Lists are for. Now, for historical movie perspective:

1.) Many Disney historians and books dedicated to the classics point to The Hunchback of Notra Dame as one of the lowpoints of the Disney renaissance. Simply put: it was too dark. I'm not saying that animated films can't be dark, but if your target audience is families, and your goal is to create timlessness, don't insert gloomy scenes of judgement and erotic fantasies. Eww...that's just bone-chilling, and not in a good way.

2.) Dissapointing box-office.

3.) Over-the-top score. Yes, the music is good, but at times it is jarring and takes on a life of its own. That violates the number one rule for a good film score. It has to compliment the movie, not completely take it over. When you think of the Fab Four, or Pocahontas, or even Mulan for that matter, the music is definately something the audience remembers, but it's not THE saving point of remembrance. The songs ranged from good, to adequate, to cheaply written. (Gee, I wonder why there was no Academy Award nomination for Best Orignal Song?)

4.) The script was very poor. The additions of the gargoyles ruined the pacing at times. The dialogue was often cheesy and didactic. You have to stick with one genre and have all elemets - music, narration, characterization, dialogue, editing - meld into the requirements of that genre. The Hunchback of Notra Dame was too messy, and I blame that on the script. (Hence the Razzie Award nomination for Worst Screenplay.)

5.) While the animation is good, it does't follow the story. There should have been more gothic undertones. There's a difference from just making scenes darker colors. I mean, duh, it's dark in cathedrals. It character designs and background scheming were too lush and vibrant for the gothic motif. I mean, why did Pheobus and Esmerelda look like Ken and Barbie. If that's not enough, why don't we get to the moral of the story: Yeah, you may have a good heart and save your true love, but let's face facts, you're ugly! The girl has to go to the broad-shouldered blond. Sorry buddy!

Could we please not have a critical analysis of my post? I really don't feel like responding to someone saying, "That's just your opinion." Believe me, after posing on here for two years, I know that already. Also, yes, I do like the movie. Yes, I will be getting the eventual Special Editon. Yes, anyone who hasn't seen it, should. It's just not "genius" or "brilliant," that's all.

[pinkrenata]

You have many good points, PE, but it <i>would</i> be nice if you looked into the proper spelling of a film title (that would be 'Notre', as in French for 'our', masculine/feminine singular) before criticizing it.

[Disneykid]

Could we please not have a critical analysis of my post? I really don't feel like responding to someone saying, "That's just your opinion." Believe me, after posing on here for two years, I know that already. Also, yes, I do like the movie. Yes, I will be getting the eventual Special Editon. Yes, anyone who hasn't seen it, should. It's just not "genius" or "brilliant," that's all.

No offense, but what's the point of posting your opinion if you don't want anyone responding to it? Either way, I'm going to, and you can choose whether or not to reply (and yes, I realize you like the film, so I'm not accusing you of being a Hunchback basher, I just want to present my alternate viewpoints).

1. Disney historians each have their own opinions, as do us fans. What one historian may consider trash a devoted fan may consider treasure. Goodness knows that I've grown accustomed to Disney film historians calling Alice in Wonderland one of the biggest disappoints of Walt's era, even though I 100% disagree.

2. Since when does good box office mean a good film? Besides, the film made 100 million domestically, which is solid and far more than most Disney movies that came afterward could say.

3. I personally thought the score matched the film's style. The style was epic and grand and called for an epic and grand score to be paired up with it. I don't think a quieter, more subdued score wouldn't have matched the passion and drama on screen.

4. I found the script to be extremely well written. Where it falters is in the rather messy handling of the gargoyles. The rest of the humor is nicely placed, though, and the drama is top notch. It doesn't hammer its themes and morals into the viewer's head. It's one of the more sophisticated scripts Disney's put out. Oh, and the Razzie awards are a times a joke (they like focusing on big movies they know people have seen as opposed to smaller films that truly pieces of crap).

5. I don't get exactly follow you here. I don't see how else the animation COULD have been done for a film like this. I feel they did more than just "darken the colors." So many frames are filled with religious symbols and icons, and some feel the movie may be even TOO gothic (I disagree, but still). The film was only lush when it had to be (basically just Topsy Turvy). Besides, saying Hunchback's style is too lush for its subject matter is like saying The Lion King is too lush for its. These films are stylized and aren't meant to be exact replicas of real life (something Walt never wanted to do).

An ending with Esmeralda choosing Quasi would've been forced and unrealistic. Belle choosing Beast made sense because Gaston was a jerkface, but Phoebus was a good person. Honestly, in a real life situation, I can't see her choosing Quasi at all, even if I do like him better than Phoebus. Besides, people have been complaining about the book deviations so much that they would've committed suicide if Esmeralda had chosen Quasi (in the book she was extremely rude to him and did nothing but pine over Phoebus till the very end).

[Kenai]

Well, PE (BTW,awesome choice for a nickname ) , as said, good points, but again, it's just what you think. I mean, I might think that i.e. Atlantis was a very low point in WDFA, but others might back that up and say "What are you talking about? You know nothing, Atlantis, while failing expectations, certainly had a great story, extremely detailed characters with complex histories, etc etc etc". I mean, people who pick apart the movie and contradict all the negatives and imperfections of it just don't see the movie for what it is, a really great movie. I mean, sure, as said again, it's not faithful to the book at all, but i'm glad, because that makes it uniquely Disney masterpiece all it's own. I'm sure great movies like the Secret of NIMH(non-Disney) weren't entirely truthful to the book it's based on (forget the name of it) either.

And as far as the gothicness, the Disney animators and artists did a great job making sure they captured the look of 17th century Paris.

[Prince Eric]

You have many good points, PE, but it <i>would</i> be nice if you looked into the proper spelling of a film title (that would be 'Notre', as in French for 'our', masculine/feminine singular) before criticizing it.

Thank you so very much for pointing out my typing errors! If I ever need an editor I will definately give you a call!

[Prince Eric]

Could we please not have a critical analysis of my post? I really don't feel like responding to someone saying, "That's just your opinion." Believe me, after posing on here for two years, I know that already. Also, yes, I do like the movie. Yes, I will be getting the eventual Special Editon. Yes, anyone who hasn't seen it, should. It's just not "genius" or "brilliant," that's all.

No offense, but what's the point of posting your opinion if you don't want anyone responding to it? Either way, I'm going to, and you can choose whether or not to reply (and yes, I realize you like the film, so I'm not accusing you of being a Hunchback basher, I just want to present my alternate viewpoints).

1. Disney historians each have their own opinions, as do us fans. What one historian may consider trash a devoted fan may consider treasure. Goodness knows that I've grown accustomed to Disney film historians calling Alice in Wonderland one of the biggest disappoints of Walt's era, even though I 100% disagree.

2. Since when does good box office mean a good film? Besides, the film made 100 million domestically, which is solid and far more than most Disney movies that came afterward could say.

3. I personally thought the score matched the film's style. The style was epic and grand and called for an epic and grand score to be paired up with it. I don't think a quieter, more subdued score wouldn't have matched the passion and drama on screen.

4. I found the script to be extremely well written. Where it falters is in the rather messy handling of the gargoyles. The rest of the humor is nicely placed, though, and the drama is top notch. It doesn't hammer its themes and morals into the viewer's head. It's one of the more sophisticated scripts Disney's put out. Oh, and the Razzie awards are a times a joke (they like focusing on big movies they know people have seen as opposed to smaller films that truly pieces of crap).

5. I don't get exactly follow you here. I don't see how else the animation COULD have been done for a film like this. I feel they did more than just "darken the colors." So many frames are filled with religious symbols and icons, and some feel the movie may be even TOO gothic (I disagree, but still). The film was only lush when it had to be (basically just Topsy Turvy). Besides, saying Hunchback's style is too lush for its subject matter is like saying The Lion King is too lush for its. These films are stylized and aren't meant to be exact replicas of real life (something Walt never wanted to do).

An ending with Esmeralda choosing Quasi would've been forced and unrealistic. Belle choosing Beast made sense because Gaston was a jerkface, but Phoebus was a good person. Honestly, in a real life situation, I can't see her choosing Quasi at all, even if I do like him better than Phoebus. Besides, people have been complaining about the book deviations so much that they would've committed suicide if Esmeralda had chosen Quasi (in the book she was extremely rude to him and did nothing but pine over Phoebus till the very end).

Uh...wow, maybe I should repost my first paragraph again, but I don't feel like it. Regardless of how YOU or any individual feels, a box-office dissapointment is a box-office dissapointment. Around that time, it was costing about 100 million dollars to make and market a big animated picture, there's no denying that. It will go down in history as such. Alice in Wonderland has gone down as one as well. Nothing you or anyone else says will change that. Again, a historian is not a fan, as you stated, yet seem to undermine in your whole defense. YOU like the score. YOU think it is well-written. YOU think the animation was appropriate. I didn't even say all they was to make dark scenes. The movie was dark, but the animation was not. Animation involves more than color schemes you know. It's one thing to gush endlessly about one of the Fab Four, but when dealing with problematic material such as this, you MUST present why you like it (which is usually the minority opinion) AND why it's regarded the way it is. I will close with a repeated sentence: This is not a work of "genius."

[Disneykid]

First off, I mentioned the box office thing because you did. Yes, it didn't do as well as Disney intended, but you seemed to use box office draw as a reason to state why Hunchback isn't one of the better Disney films, which is a flimsy excuse. You seem to hold film historians in too high a respect. They're people. They have opinions just like we do. Just because one of them says Hunchback wasn't a good film doesn't make it so. Plus, using your own logic, what do you with films like Pinocchio and Fantasia which completely TANKED in their first run yet are regarded as classics now? On the flip side, what do you do when a movie is panned by historians yet does remarkably well? You can see, now, how using box office draw and critic's opinions doesn't really help support reasons for liking or disliking a movie.

You want me to present why I like it? All righty, then. The script has excellent pacing. There's never a time where the film drags on too long somewhere. Likewise, there's never a time where the film feels extremely rushed. It also doesn't talk down to its audience and is not afraid to use accurate terms of the period that would go over most kids' (and even some adults') heads. The script gives you time to appreciate each character. No one feels under-utilized because there are essentially only four leads, and each gest the appropriate screentime he deserves. It succeeds in linking each character thematically. Everyone in the film has a longing for something (or someone), and we are shown how each one deals with that longing. The three male leads long for Esmeralda's love, and everyone longs for some sort of freedom (Quasi wants freedom in the outside world, Frollo wants spiritual freedom from the lust that consumes him, Esmeralda wants social freedom for her and the other gypsies, and Phoebus wants freedom to care for who he wishes). The gargoyles are rather out of place, yes, so I won't even attempt to defend that area (it would've been more effective if Quasi talked to them and they didn't talk back, just like in the book). I'm still trying to figure out what you see wrong with the animation. Yes, there's more to style than colors, so let's focus on other aspects. The humans are all drawn realistically to better fit with the realistic story. There are no geometric (Aladdin), straight and angular (Sleeping Beauty), or round and bumpy (Lilo & Stitch) people here. Everyone's done in a way that mimics real life. Frollo, despite being the villain, has no exaggeratingly evil features. He looks like a common man of the period, allowing his evil to be expressed through his personality as opposed to his looks. The same goes for everyone else. Backgrounds are extremely detailed without overpowering the players (something some people say happened with Sleeping Beauty) and help support the tone of the scene presented. The staging is both realistic and theatrical at the same time. It all feels very cinematic yet grounded in reality, and if I honestly can't think of how else to approach this subject matter visually. If you can, please tell me, because I'm really curious as to what other ways this can be done. Besides, the characters look more dimensional and fluid than in more popular Disney features such as The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast (of course, one can argue that it's because of the time span, but the point is the animation can't be improved upon). Because the story is dark and somber, it required a dark and somber score, and that's what it got. Every song (well, except maybe "A Guy Like You") pushes the film forward rather than grinding it to a halt (admit it, "Be Our Guest" is amazing, but it does not take a 5 minute show-stopping number to feed Belle). The lyrics are potent and, just like the script, don't cater down to the audience. Each song is filled with so much emotion and passion that you can't believe they're from a Disney animated film. Latin chanting is put to great use, and sublimely underline what the characters are thinking in a way the audience isn't expecting. They also help support the gothic, spiritual tone of the film.

And that is only a fraction of why I love Hunchback so much. Well, you asked me to support my opinion. This is why, for me, it is a masterpiece, despite what you may think of the use of such words (do you use ANYTHING to describe The Little Mermaid, then?).

[Prince Eric]

First off, I mentioned the box office thing because you did. Yes, it didn't do as well as Disney intended, but you seemed to use box office draw as a reason to state why Hunchback isn't one of the better Disney films, which is a flimsy excuse. You seem to hold film historians in too high a respect. They're people. They have opinions just like we do. Just because one of them says Hunchback wasn't a good film doesn't make it so. Plus, using your own logic, what do you with films like Pinocchio and Fantasia which completely TANKED in their first run yet are regarded as classics now? On the flip side, what do you do when a movie is panned by historians yet does remarkably well? You can see, now, how using box office draw and critic's opinions doesn't really help support reasons for liking or disliking a movie.

You want me to present why I like it? All righty, then. The script has excellent pacing. There's never a time where the film drags on too long somewhere. Likewise, there's never a time where the film feels extremely rushed. It also doesn't talk down to its audience and is not afraid to use accurate terms of the period that would go over most kids' (and even some adults') heads. The script gives you time to appreciate each character. No one feels under-utilized because there are essentially only four leads, and each gest the appropriate screentime he deserves. It succeeds in linking each character thematically. Everyone in the film has a longing for something (or someone), and we are shown how each one deals with that longing. The three male leads long for Esmeralda's love, and everyone longs for some sort of freedom (Quasi wants freedom in the outside world, Frollo wants spiritual freedom from the lust that consumes him, Esmeralda wants social freedom for her and the other gypsies, and Phoebus wants freedom to care for who he wishes). The gargoyles are rather out of place, yes, so I won't even attempt to defend that area (it would've been more effective if Quasi talked to them and they didn't talk back, just like in the book). I'm still trying to figure out what you see wrong with the animation. Yes, there's more to style than colors, so let's focus on other aspects. The humans are all drawn realistically to better fit with the realistic story. There are no geometric (Aladdin), straight and angular (Sleeping Beauty), or round and bumpy (Lilo & Stitch) people here. Everyone's done in a way that mimics real life. Frollo, despite being the villain, has no exaggeratingly evil features. He looks like a common man of the period, allowing his evil to be expressed through his personality as opposed to his looks. The same goes for everyone else. Backgrounds are extremely detailed without overpowering the players (something some people say happened with Sleeping Beauty) and help support the tone of the scene presented. The staging is both realistic and theatrical at the same time. It all feels very cinematic yet grounded in reality, and if I honestly can't think of how else to approach this subject matter visually. If you can, please tell me, because I'm really curious as to what other ways this can be done. Besides, the characters look more dimensional and fluid than in more popular Disney features such as The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast (of course, one can argue that it's because of the time span, but the point is the animation can't be improved upon). Because the story is dark and somber, it required a dark and somber score, and that's what it got. Every song (well, except maybe "A Guy Like You") pushes the film forward rather than grinding it to a halt (admit it, "Be Our Guest" is amazing, but it does not take a 5 minute show-stopping number to feed Belle). The lyrics are potent and, just like the script, don't cater down to the audience. Each song is filled with so much emotion and passion that you can't believe they're from a Disney animated film. Latin chanting is put to great use, and sublimely underline what the characters are thinking in a way the audience isn't expecting. They also help support the gothic, spiritual tone of the film.

And that is only a fraction of why I love Hunchback so much. Well, you asked me to support my opinion. This is why, for me, it is a masterpiece, despite what you may think of the use of such words (do you use ANYTHING to describe The Little Mermaid, then?).

I stopped reading after the second paragraph, and I don't intend to finish. I like the movie, so I don't need YOUR opinions to "strengthen" my regard for it. Historians are historians, meaning they deal with facts. A good historian doesn't insert his/her opinion. The Hunchback of Notre Dame falls short from the rest of the Disney line-up whether you like it or not - moneywise, artistically, and in the popular zeitgeist. I didn't ask you to support your opinion, I stated why mine was the way it was, and then certain people had to jump down my throat, which is why I told you not to psychoanalyze my post the first time.

[Disneykid]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame falls short from the rest of the Disney line-up whether you like it or not - moneywise, artistically, and in the popular zeitgeist.

Ok, see, it's statements like that that make me feel the need to defend the film. Stating that Hunchback falls sort in terms of popularity and money is true; those are given facts. The fact that it falls short artistically is strictly a matter of opinion. I keep refuting you because you keep inserting your opinion in the midst of facts and try to pass it off as fact. To you, Hunchback isn't as good as many other films in terms of both artistry and entertainment. That's fine, but that is NOT a fact, whether you wish to believe it or not, just like my saying the film is a masterpiece isn't a fact, either.

[Prince Eric]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame falls short from the rest of the Disney line-up whether you like it or not - moneywise, artistically, and in the popular zeitgeist.

Ok, see, it's statements like that that make me feel the need to defend the film. Stating that Hunchback falls sort in terms of popularity and money is true; those are given facts. The fact that it falls short artistically is strictly a matter of opinion. I keep refuting you because you keep inserting your opinion in the midst of facts and try to pass it off as fact. To you, Hunchback isn't as good as many other films in terms of both artistry and entertainment. That's fine, but that is NOT a fact, whether you wish to believe it or not, just like my saying the film is a masterpiece isn't a fact, either.

What is a fact is that for the majority of people feel it was an artistic failure which doesn't make it an indellible fact, but a rule of thumb fact.

[Disneykid]

What is a fact is that for the majority of people feel it was an artistic failure which doesn't make it an indellible fact, but a rule of thumb fact.

All right, I guess I can excuse a rule of thumb fact, then. I suppose this now means the debate's over. Shame. We didn't even get to call each other naughty names, yet.

[Prince Eric]

What is a fact is that for the majority of people feel it was an artistic failure which doesn't make it an indellible fact, but a rule of thumb fact.

All right, I guess I can excuse a rule of thumb fact, then. I suppose this now means the debate's over. Shame. We didn't even get to call each other naughty names, yet.

I know! I was so hoping you would take the first jab and then I would have an excuse to respond!

[TimonRoxMySox]

I dunno how I feel about this one. I mean, I liked the animation, I liked the songs, but...I don't know it just didn't feel right to me. I was really young when I saw this and I haven't seen it since, so I should probably watch it again. But I just remember walking out of the theater really dissapointed in this film after watching such a triumph as the Lion King some time before. Meh, but that's just me. Maybe I need to watch it again. It could also be that I never liked the story that much. After I saw the Disney version, I saw the live action film and I was terrified. I guess I just need to give it another chance.

[Stitch's Glitch]

So are all of you saying that I shouldn't buy it because it's a bad movie. I think I'll at least give it a try but I always kick myself for not listening to people before.

Yes, get it . It isn't one of the best but it is injoyable. Most people wouldn't like the book after seeing the movie cause Quasimodo dies at the end of the book. If you are interested in getting the movie they have it at Wal-Mart for 13 bucks. Give it a shot!

[Zoltack]

So are all of you saying that I shouldn't buy it because it's a bad movie. I think I'll at least give it a try but I always kick myself for not listening to people before.

Yes, get it . It isn't one of the best but it is injoyable. Most people wouldn't like the book after seeing the movie cause Quasimodo dies at the end of the book. If you are interested in getting the movie they have it at Wal-Mart for 13 bucks. Give it a shot!

Ahhhhhh!!! You spoiled it for me now!!! Ahhhhh!!! I didn't know he dies at the end.

Oh-well, it's not like I was going to read the book anyways.

[pinkrenata]

Yes, get it . It isn't one of the best but it is injoyable. Most people wouldn't like the book after seeing the movie cause Quasimodo dies at the end of the book. If you are interested in getting the movie they have it at Wal-Mart for 13 bucks. Give it a shot!

Ahhhhhh!!! You spoiled it for me now!!! Ahhhhh!!! I didn't know he dies at the end.

Oh-well, it's not like I was going to read the book anyways.

I think just about everyone dies in the book except for Phoebus. Even Clopin.

[Isidour]

Why does that sounded to me like a Shakespearian plot?

anyway, it have a very atractive music and man I liked the soundtrack

[JohnSmith]

Hunchback isnt the best disney movie, but far from the worst.

The Gargoyles really cause a problem in my eyes, they are completly out of place, and seriously unfunny. With all this emotion and drama, they just pop up and make a stupid joke. I found the music lacking also, Though "Hellfire" is wonderful.

But I still like it.

[Wonderlicious]

I think just about everyone dies in the book except for Phoebus. Even Clopin.

And then in the deleted chapter, all remaining living characters go to stand next to Notre Dame, only to discover it collapses on them. Crash.