DVDizzy Forum

You know what I don't understand about Esmy's apparent death? Despite the fact she is saved from burning at the stake, she's supposedly fine and they just make it seem like she dies just like that without explanation. I mean, I don't know. I never saw the German stage production.

DisneyJedi wrote:You know what I don't understand about Esmy's apparent death? Despite the fact she is saved from burning at the stake, she's supposedly fine and they just make it seem like she dies just like that without explanation. I mean, I don't know. I never saw the German stage production.

She dies from the effects of smoke inhalation in both productions.

rubyslippers wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:You know what I don't understand about Esmy's apparent death? Despite the fact she is saved from burning at the stake, she's supposedly fine and they just make it seem like she dies just like that without explanation. I mean, I don't know. I never saw the German stage production.

She dies from the effects of smoke inhalation in both productions.

But it doesn't make sense. She coughs on the smoke in the movie and she turned out okay.

DisneyJedi wrote:But it doesn't make sense. She coughs on the smoke in the movie and she turned out okay.

In the DISNEY movie, meaning Disney can not kill the heroine. Or else they'll have a mob of parents, trying to kill them.

DisneyJedi wrote:

rubyslippers wrote: She dies from the effects of smoke inhalation in both productions.

But it doesn't make sense. She coughs on the smoke in the movie and she turned out okay.

The Disney film had no intention of killing her character, so they wrote her character as surviving. The stage shows did want her to die, so she dies.

A promo video has been posted!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQZbpSGaZfg

rubyslippers wrote:A promo video has been posted!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQZbpSGaZfg

I'm glad they're giving the opening chants "The Bells of Notre Dame" the justice it deserves. The King's Academy Version made the opening chants more slower and duller.

However, the girl who plays Esmeralda is sexy and while she won't replace the looks of the animated Esmeralda, she's still a nice substitute.

I was able to see the musical through D23 and we were both amazed and floored that it was one of the best we had seen. The set was awesome, each song except the gargoyles was sung many with new reprises or songs altogether. The cast was top notch and the characters were greatly enhanced in depth from a better backstory with Frollo and a deeper understanding of his character. Hes no longer some vile creature but more of a person tormented by his convictions. If you have a chance to see it its well worth it but prices are pretty steep

I just read a pretty insightful, lengthy review of the show from a huge Hunchback fan on Tumblr, and thought I'd post it here. Be warned, SPOILERS, naturally, follow:

"My experience of seeing the Disney musical The Hunchback of Notre Dame: What more is there to say on the new Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame musical that hasn’t been said already? Let’s see what all I can ramble on about from my experience on November 7th.

I first must say it amuses me that of all places to have a big show like Hunchback of Notre Dame to make it’s debut in I would have never expected La Jolla, California. I think of how the VA hospital is nearby, one of my uncles used to work there for years. It’s just a quaint beach town. Nestled up in a woodsy area, off La Jolla Village Drive, is the Playhouse Theatre. And gah, watch out for raccoons in the area! Like for reals! When we went to see the show I saw the big critters scurrying around and even ran across the sidewalk, da hell! O_o

I had won my tickets due to entering my Frollo costume through the La Jolla Playhouse Halloween costume contest. I was the only one with a Hunchback-themed costume so they felt I was best suited to win. I thought how awesome to win and choose one of the performance dates of my birthday week. I couldn’t go on my actual day, the 6th, because of work, so I went with Friday the 7th. I discovered that even though the show had been going on since October 26th, it still was in its preview stages. The grand opening was actually November 9th. Wow, interesting! Honestly, for being in preview stages, I couldn’t tell. It was beyond amazing! Just walking in to find our seats I was getting all giddy at seeing the stage. It’s breathtaking!

The moment the lights dimmed, the music started in, the monks chanting, the bells tolling I could not stop grinning big. My favorite movie is now in live form, right in front of me! The thunderous chords of Hellfire pumped through with the choir (or the congregation as they are listed as) chanting and I knew I was in for quite the ride!

The Bells of Notre Dame dragged on a bit I must admit as the congregation told the back story of Frollo, who is a priest in this, harking back to the original book. Jehan, his younger brother, is in this too, but only for the back story. Jehan gets himself involved with some random gypsy girl, Florika, and they have a child…..Quasimodo. Oh, yes, indeedly do, you heard me right, they have Jehan be Quasimodo’s father in this. Yeah….I did a double take, anyway, lol! So Jehan is dying, on his death bed he implores his older brother Claude to care for his son as his own. Thus how Frollo came to care for Quasimodo. Hmmm, still not sure what I think of Jehan being Quasi’s father, but oh, well.

Act One was quite solid in both acting and singing. All that we remember of the cartoon was found there and then some. Patrick Page as Archdeacon Claude Frollo truly steals the show! I love how he’s a combination of both book and the Disney movie. There were moments, like in the church where honestly, he could have won over Esmeralda if he had remained calm. He mentioned wanting to talk with her, like on just the philosophies of life. She actually seemed okay with that too, but Frollo being Frollo couldn’t keep his calm under control for long. He already was wound up tight from her Tambourine song and dance at the Festival of Fools. Yes, a song too, she sings as she comes out to make her entrance to entrance. Standing too close to her in the church causes him to fly off the handle. I had to snicker at how loud he screamed, hehe!

Esmeralda is both beautiful and a joy to watch in this. Sometimes the singing of Ciara Renée got a tad screechy with some songs. Her softer songs, like God Help the Outcasts is where she really shined the most.

The actor for Quasimodo, Michael Arden, OMG, he was amazing! They kept him deaf from the bells in this, which I was glad they did. He was just phenomenal in both his singing and acting.

I was really happy with the Clopin actor! I’m sure Paul Kendall would be pleased too. I was bummed however that the Court of Miracles song was in a different tempo than from the cartoon. Other than Hellfire, I really like that one too. I looked at my sister, who gave me the same look during that scene and we just shook our heads. Nope, sorry, should have left that one the same and not change it.

Phoebus is quite the swaggering peacock. They definitely went more by the book with him, just no Fleur de Lys for him. As the story goes on though he actually redeems himself, less douchebag. Not saying I’ll become a Phoebus fan any time soon, but he mellows out as the story goes along. He had no singing in the cartoon version at all, but he now makes up for that big time in the musical version. Including some sappy love stuff too, ugh! *rolls eyes*

Highlights for me of Act One was of course the opening theme that instantly pulled me in. The whole Topsy Turvy/Rhythm of the Tambourine scene. I also absolutely loved The Tavern Song/Thai Mol Piyas scene. Esmeralda goes off to dance in a tavern after the church scene while Frollo is watching and lurking in the shadows. Phoebus is there too and of course Frollo becomes insanely jealous. Yes, by the way, they kept the stabbing scene in from the book, but in a rather odd way, during the Esmeralda song at the end of Act One.

Heaven’s Light and Hellfire are both perfectly played out. Again, it’s like watching the cartoon come to life. Absolutely breathtaking to see their vastly different emotions vividly on display in a live setting. I loved how the colors slowly change during Hellfire. It first starts off in a cool bluish setting and then gradually becomes blazing red. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, I was grinning so big, loving every second of it!

To experience the Esmeralda song for the finale of Act One was also quite the treat. I absolutely love that song, there is so much energy and emotion. Odd how they chose to attempt to burn down a brothel in this instead of the Miller’s house. They also have the Phoebus stabbing in this scene too.

Now with how amazing Act One was, I felt Act Two started off a bit wonky. The song Flight into Egypt is kind of on the style of A Guy Like You, trying to find some light amongst all the dark and adult themes. It focuses on the Saint Aphrodisius who was beheaded. He comes out from the stained glass window to sing to Quasi. Yeah….it was a bit out of place to start the second part of the show, but anyway….

The rest of Act Two focuses on finding Esmeralda and the mad search led by Frollo. As mentioned, I didn’t like the changed tempo to the Court of Miracles song. I also feel that A Place of Miracles was not necessary at all. Just like As Long as There’s a Moon was deleted from the cartoon, this should have been too. The gypsies have just been informed that Frollo knows where their hideout is and is coming. That means, pack and flee, now! Not start singing a cutesy love song, ugh! And just like in the cartoon, Frollo crashes the party and captures everyone. This then leads into the dungeon scene. Oh, yes indeedly do! XD Frollo tries to sway Esmeralda to choose him or she will die at dawn. He tells her that if she wants to save Phoebus and her people she will consider his offer. Again, he goes from calm one minute to batshit crazy in the next. Whenever he is so close to her he cannot keep control. I can see why they strongly suggest kids should not be in the audience for this, but yet I saw kids there that night anyway. Must have been a fun conversation the parents had explaining all this to them, heh!

Phoebus and Esmeralda share the song Someday together after Frollo leaves her to decide. Phoebus suggests that she should take up Frollo’s offer to save herself, but Esmeralda can’t bring herself to allow that, even for the sake of Phoebus and her people. Sanctuary, the pyre scene. Intensely handled. Frollo once more gives her the chance to save herself by choosing him to where she spits in his face. The pyre is lit and she burns. Quasimodo does free himself from the cathedral to swoop down to save her, but she was left on the pyre for far too long. I honestly was not entirely sure how they would play it out for this, cartoon happy ending version or go by how they did in the German Disney musical and have her die like in the book. She even sat up, sang with Quasimodo, but then fell back and died. Wow, they went bold and had her die. The confrontation between Frollo and Quasimodo was also really intense and it gave me quite the chill. Frollo’s death scene was handled so perfectly. Some could say a bit hokey at how they had him fall, but really it was chilling.

When Esmeralda walked off through the gates of Notre Dame as a symbol of going to Heaven it reminded me in the style of Les Misérables. She was bathed in white light as she walked on. I was biting my lip to not cry. I had already been an emotional mess anyway throughout the show, riding it all out like a rollercoaster.

Truly, the show is phenomenal! Our audience gave a standing ovation. I would say, if you love the book and if you love the Disney movie, you will definitely LOVE the musical! The combination of the two, aside from some minor flaws, actually works. I was fully pleased with the show and I would definitely see it again.

I had mentioned in a post the night we came home from the show how we met Patrick Page. You can check that out HERE

I still feel like I was all over the place in this review. To put it simply, I fangirled big time about it and am so happy that finally this story is getting the recognition it truly deserves. ♥"

http://christinefrollophile.tumblr.com/ ... 5522223/as

This review, from someone who is, obviously, as big a fan of the film as I am, has alleviated a fair share of my fears. But, at the same time, it's still left me thinking, "Wait, WHAT?" about certain things... The changing of the backstory in Bells of Notre Dame, to me, is really bizarre and, frankly, pointless. Jehan, Frollo's little brother from the original novel, was a cad in the book. A money-leeching party-boy who needed a good kick in the ass. To make him Quasimodo's father, to me, is... I don't like that. At all. I prefer the ambiguity. We don't NEED to know much about Quasimodo's parentage, just that he was born to gypsies. That's actually a far bigger change to the novel than the original backstory was! I still think that it would have made infinitely more sense for the ARCHDEACON of the film to become Jehan Frollo in the musical. It would harken back to the original novel (a Frollo being the archdeacon), while staying true to the film and actually IMPROVING on the film a little bit, by lending a little more credibility to the idea of Frollo stowing the child away in the belltower. I'm assuming from the description that Clopin no longer sings this song. And, to me, that's just. NO. Clopin was the PERFECT introductory character in the film. Again, why fix what isn't broken? I can at least UNDERSTAND why they'd nix the Gargoyles, even if I find it cynical and cowardly. But, Clopin is now too 'Disney' for the show all of a sudden? Next to Frollo, Disney's reinterpretation of Clopin was my FAVORITE thing about their adaptation. It's disappointing, to say the least.

I actually LOVE the idea of Frollo stabbing Phoebus, just like in the novel. In the Disney version, Frollo orders Phoebus shot with an arrow, so, they still stayed true to the spirit of the idea, but, Frollo stabbing Phoebus in a tavern and trying to burn it down? Oh, my, that's so great...literally a mix of the Disney AND the book version of events and that DOES make me excited. Quasimodo being partially deaf, as in the book, is also a welcome change. Love these ideas. This 'Flight Into Egypt' song sounds...bad. Just from the description. Look, I get it, people don't like A Guy Like You, but, to hell with them. It can be re-worked. How is the idea of the Gargoyles singing any sillier than a HEADLESS statue of a saint singing? The changing of the Court of Miracles into a slow, sinister song? I'm kind of on the fence about it. Again, Clopin not being a trickster-type still makes me uneasy, but, that's a song that is all ready semi-villainous and sinister, so, it's not entirely out of left-field. At least it's IN the show, because it had been cut in the original German production. I'll reserve judgment until I've heard it for myself.

The most galling thing, to me, is the idea that the deleted song from the film, "In a Place of Miracles," has been restored. I always found this song to be one of those songs that emphasizes the worst excesses of Alan Menken. You know, the cheesy, sentimental lovey-dovey BORING number that has everybody except the incredibly gooey, corny among us checking our watches and rolling our eyes. If it's anything like the Demo Recording that was on the LaserDisc...yeah, not happy about it being here. It was a cheesy song, and it didn't deserve to be included. If they wanted a deleted song in there, why not "As Long As There's a Moon"? That one, at least, was romantic and less soapy. And actually kind of heart-breaking, since Quasimodo DID have to stand and bear witness to it. (Seriously, look up both songs on Youtube if you haven't heard either and tell me, seriously, that "In a Place of Miracles" is better. You can't.)

Esmeralda dying is something that I think I've come to terms with. It's just going to happen, because, at this point, they seem like they REALLY want to please the book-purists, even at the expense of turning off the film's fans. If that's what it takes for this show to be a smash-hit and FINALLY get the film the respect it deserves, I'm fine with that. I just think Disney Esmeralda is SUCH an empowered, strong and wonderful character that murdering her cheapens her a bit. I don't know. Megara and Esmeralda, to me, just seemed to be made of STRONGER STUFF than all the other Disney gals, so, the idea of Frollo WINNING, to me, is just... Depressing. Especially DISNEY Frollo. I love him, I do, but, BECAUSE I find him so utterly deplorable. The thought that he gets to WIN, essentially, is disturbing to me. But, maybe I'm just a big soft-hearted homo who believes that, in Disney, good and hope and decency should ALWAYS win out in the end. Again, who knows, once I SEE the show (or should I say IF), I may find I love the change.

Anyway, I've aired my piece. Excuse any typos. This really was an off-the-cuff type thing for me. Hunchback means a lot to me, and I always love getting the chance to talk/write about it.

""The most galling thing, to me, is the idea that the deleted song from the film, "In a Place of Miracles," has been restored. I always found this song to be one of those songs that emphasizes the worst excesses of Alan Menken. You know, the cheesy, sentimental lovey-dovey BORING number that has everybody except the incredibly gooey, corny among us checking our watches and rolling our eyes. If it's anything like the Demo Recording that was on the LaserDisc...yeah, not happy about it being here.""

I've heard an audio of the show and In A Place of Miracles is actually beautiful. I don't like the demo version but what they've done with the song in the show works. They've weaved in a reprise of Heaven's Light, and towards the end of the song it becomes a group number about the gypsies having to leave their home (as Quasimodo and Phoebus warned them Frollo knows of their whereabouts) to hopefully find somewhere that would accept them. "Could there be a country kinder to our race? In a place of miracles."

I also think that it's important not to view the changes as being done to "please book purists" because it's assuming a motivation for the showrunners that just isn't there. The show isn't made for book purists. Or Disney purists, for that matter. It's not made for purists at all. It's an attempt at bringing a story of love and humanity and darkness and kindness to the stage in a way that reflects the original complexity of the novel through some of the original Disney material. It's not meant to be the book, but it's not meant to be the Disney film. That means striking a compromise between both that, for the most part, takes away the polarizing characterization present in the Disney film (Frollo isn't an evil caricature, Esmeralda isn't an angel of light, etc) and removing elements of the Disney film that were introduced because they wanted to make it 'family friendly,' such as Esmeralda surviving. Esmeralda doesn't have to live to be a strong character. Her unjust death is just a part of the story, as is her kindness towards other people.

Well, then, we just disagree. Because I do not see Disney Frollo as anything so simple as a caricature. He's one of the most complex villains in the movies, something of a mix between Amon Goth of Schindler's List and a religious zealot/madman akin to Robert Mitchum's false preacher Harry Powell from The Night of the Hunter. To simplify such a rich, fascinating character as nothing more than an 'evil caricature' is redundant. "Esmeralda doesn't have to live to be a strong character"? I'm sorry, but, you don't see how that's problematic? "Here, we've created a non-shallow, idealistic icon of feminine power and beauty who stands up to injustice and speaks for the oppressed, defies authority at her own risk and does so selflessly and heedless of the cost to herself...and, whoops, a horny old man kills her." That doesn't...make you uneasy? Or take away Esmeralda's power? This is a fundamental difference. She may have been rescued by Quasimodo in the film, and that's not exactly feminist in and of itself, but it beats the hell out of the entitled, sexist villain SUCCEEDING in his goal of destroying this strong, confident woman who DARED reject him.

I'm still glad they decided to kill off Esmeralda. The emotional stakes are higher and her symbolic ascend to heaven further explain that this 'ethnic minority devil woman' that Frollo made her out to be was actually an angel, or rather 'heaven's light'.

If it goes to Broadway I will definitely go see it.

PatrickvD wrote:I'm still glad they decided to kill off Esmeralda. The emotional stakes are higher and her symbolic ascend to heaven further explain that this 'ethnic minority devil woman' that Frollo made her out to be was actually an angel, or rather 'heaven's light'.

If it goes to Broadway I will definitely go see it.

See, to me, just from the description of it, that sounds...corny. Les Miserables was mentioned, and one of my biggest beefs with that show is how overly sentimental it gets at the end. I find it kind of pretentious. That said, this is based on how it's being DESCRIBED. Once I see it, I could find it completely beautiful. But, that kind of thing is, generally speaking, VERY hard to get right without overplaying your hand. To me, Quasimodo being led outside the church and into the light and frightened as a little girl steps forward--wincing from her--and, ultimately, melting into an embrace of acceptance, was a far more emotionally mature and nuanced ending. It's one of my favorite moments in Disney animation.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:Well, then, we just disagree. Because I do not see Disney Frollo as anything so simple as a caricature. He's one of the most complex villains in the movies, something of a mix between Amon Goth of Schindler's List and a religious zealot/madman akin to Robert Mitchum's false preacher Harry Powell from The Night of the Hunter. To simplify such a rich, fascinating character as nothing more than an 'evil caricature' is redundant. "Esmeralda doesn't have to live to be a strong character"? I'm sorry, but, you don't see how that's problematic? "Here, we've created a non-shallow, idealistic icon of feminine power and beauty who stands up to injustice and speaks for the oppressed, defies authority at her own risk and does so selflessly and heedless of the cost to herself...and, whoops, a horny old man kills her." That doesn't...make you uneasy? Or take away Esmeralda's power? This is a fundamental difference. She may have been rescued by Quasimodo in the film, and that's not exactly feminist in and of itself, but it beats the hell out of the entitled, sexist villain SUCCEEDING in his goal of destroying this strong, confident woman who DARED reject him.

In the film, Frollo kills Quasimodo's mother and shows no remorse, only fear that he'll go to Hell. He lies to Quasimodo for his entire life and his first interactions with Esmeralda past her dance are to threaten how he imagines a rope around her neck while groping her. Does he have more complex motivations than some Disney villains? Of course! But he's still a villain from start to finish. The show's version of Frollo does not demand Esmeralda's arrest for helping Quasimodo--in fact her actions intrigue him, since it goes against everything he knows about gypsies. He even demands the crowd stops taunting Quasimodo after she runs away, since Quasimodo has learned his lesson, a lesson that Frollo genuinely believes in the show: the world is cruel and the world is wicked. He confronts Esmeralda in the church, but rather than order her arrested or grope her, he tries to talk with her about morality and religion and the possibility of saving her 'pagan' soul. His descent into darkness is gradual and his character, like most of the characters in the show, actually seem like people rather than stock.

I'm not sure why you think that justice has to prevail in the story in order for it to be good, or for Esmeralda's character to be strong? The story is a tragedy. Happy endings don't always come at the end of a story. Esmeralda, in the show, is a kind person who shows compassion for others and has a hope for a better future. The tragedy is that this young person who, unlike so many around her, had a loving heart is killed. Her dying does not change who she was.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:I'm still glad they decided to kill off Esmeralda. The emotional stakes are higher and her symbolic ascend to heaven further explain that this 'ethnic minority devil woman' that Frollo made her out to be was actually an angel, or rather 'heaven's light'.

If it goes to Broadway I will definitely go see it.

See, to me, just from the description of it, that sounds...corny. Les Miserables was mentioned, and one of my biggest beefs with that show is how overly sentimental it gets at the end. I find it kind pretentious. That said, this is based on how it's being DESCRIBED. Once I see it, I could find it completely beautiful. But, that kind of thing is, generally speaking, VERY hard to get right without overplaying your hand. To me, Quasimodo being led outside the church and into the light and frightened as a little girl steps forward--wincing from her--and, ultimately, melting into an embrace of acceptance, was a far more emotionally mature and nuanced ending. It's one of my favorite moments in Disney animation.

Guess we have to agree to disagree. Because the scene with the little girl, to me, is corny and pretentious. I hated it when I first saw it and I still do today.

rubyslippers wrote:

ProfessorRatigan wrote:Well, then, we just disagree. Because I do not see Disney Frollo as anything so simple as a caricature. He's one of the most complex villains in the movies, something of a mix between Amon Goth of Schindler's List and a religious zealot/madman akin to Robert Mitchum's false preacher Harry Powell from The Night of the Hunter. To simplify such a rich, fascinating character as nothing more than an 'evil caricature' is redundant. "Esmeralda doesn't have to live to be a strong character"? I'm sorry, but, you don't see how that's problematic? "Here, we've created a non-shallow, idealistic icon of feminine power and beauty who stands up to injustice and speaks for the oppressed, defies authority at her own risk and does so selflessly and heedless of the cost to herself...and, whoops, a horny old man kills her." That doesn't...make you uneasy? Or take away Esmeralda's power? This is a fundamental difference. She may have been rescued by Quasimodo in the film, and that's not exactly feminist in and of itself, but it beats the hell out of the entitled, sexist villain SUCCEEDING in his goal of destroying this strong, confident woman who DARED reject him.

In the film, Frollo kills Quasimodo's mother and shows no remorse, only fear that he'll go to Hell. He lies to Quasimodo for his entire life and his first interactions with Esmeralda past her dance are to threaten how he imagines a rope around her neck while groping her. Does he have more complex motivations than some Disney villains? Of course! But he's still a villain from start to finish. The show's version of Frollo does not demand Esmeralda's arrest for helping Quasimodo--in fact her actions intrigue him, since it goes against everything he knows about gypsies. He even demands the crowd stops taunting Quasimodo after she runs away, since Quasimodo has learned his lesson, a lesson that Frollo genuinely believes in the show: the world is cruel and the world is wicked. He confronts Esmeralda in the church, but rather than order her arrested or grope her, he tries to talk with her about morality and religion and the possibility of saving her 'pagan' soul. His descent into darkness is gradual and his character, like most of the characters in the show, actually seem like people rather than stock.

I'm not sure why you think that justice has to prevail in the story in order for it to be good, or for Esmeralda's character to be strong? The story is a tragedy. Happy endings don't always come at the end of a story. Esmeralda, in the show, is a kind person who shows compassion for others and has a hope for a better future. The tragedy is that this young person who, unlike so many around her, had a loving heart is killed. Her dying does not change who she was.

Frollo doesn't show remorse because he TRULY believes himself to be free of guilt. "She ran. I pursued." "My conscience is clear." It's only after the act's implications (killing a woman defending her child RIGHT IN FRONT of a church named for the Virgin Mother of God) are pointed out by the Archdeacon, that Frollo DOES see that he had reason to feel guilt, exactly BECAUSE he was afraid of damnation. Otherwise, Frollo is a totally self-righteous hypocrite who believes himself to be morally superior to anyone with viewpoints differing from his own, dogmatic convictions. In that respect, he mirrors almost EVERY modern Evangelical I can think of (that horrible Dugger family comes to mind). I have no problem with introducing MORE complexity to the character, and am ALL for it. I just took exception to the notion that the FILM'S version was completely without any complexity. The line in 'Hellfire' "God have mercy on her... God have mercy on ME..." is Frollo's character in a nutshell. Notice, he not only says the line, he WHIMPERS it. He KNOWS, deep down, that what he is about to do is wrong, and he chooses to do it anyway. THAT is what elevates Frollo above 90% of all movie-villains. NEVER do you see the bad guy 'questioning' their own actions or thoughts in such a manner. This is important, I feel. Very important. It's what made Disney's take on the character so marvelous.

As for Esmeralda's death, I just don't think that because the BOOK killed her, the show needs to. Again, this is the DISNEY spin on Hunchback, and whether it's on a stage or on a screen, it needs to set itself apart. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE would be happy if Disney decided to bring the Little Mermaid to Broadway and kill Ariel at the end. Even if that would make it closer to Hans Christian Andersen's tale. No one is demanding it. And, in fact, I'd wager there would be pandemonium if it were even attempted. But, we should kill Esmeralda to prove that... what? Life isn't fair? Well, then, kill Ariel, too. Because, hey, you can't always win, kids. I just think a company that uses When You Wish Upon a Star as their corporate fanfare shouldn't be in the business of being cynical just to appeal to jaded folks who want entertainment to constantly mirror reality. The real world is tragic enough without the Happiest Company on Earth killing off childhood heroines. Just my two-cents.

ProfessorRatigan wrote: As for Esmeralda's death, I just don't think that because the BOOK killed her, the show needs to. Again, this is the DISNEY spin on Hunchback, and whether it's on a stage or on a screen, it needs to set itself apart. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE would be happy if Disney decided to bring the Little Mermaid to Broadway and kill Ariel at the end. Even if that would make it closer to Hans Christian Andersen's tale. No one is demanding it. And, in fact, I'd wager there would be pandemonium if it were even attempted. But, we should kill Esmeralda to prove that... what? Life isn't fair? Well, then, kill Ariel, too. Because, hey, you can't always win, kids. I just think a company that uses When You Wish Upon a Star as their corporate fanfare shouldn't be in the business of being cynical just to appeal to jaded folks who want entertainment to constantly mirror reality. The real world is tragic enough without the Happiest Company on Earth killing off childhood heroines. Just my two-cents.

The show isn't the DISNEY spin on the story. The show is an new adaptation that combines aspects from the Disney film, the Berlin stage adaptation, the original novel, and brand new elements. Disney's name isn't even on the show's logo. It's not even in the same ballpark as The Little Mermaid stage adaptation, which was never meant to do more than flesh out the story and make it work on stage. The creative team behind Hunchback wanted to do more than that, and go back to the story's roots, to make it a richer, more complex story that focuses on the human elements of the story before anything else.

Esmeralda doesn't die to "prove" anything. Again, there are these assumptions of the changes being made to "appeal" to people, rather than changes being made--or reverted, in this case--to capture the vision that the show's creative team has in mind.

If you want the Disney film, watch the film. But the stage show is not inherently worse because they decided to have her die, nor is she dying to appease the book purists that in your mind somehow hold such magnificent sway over an expensive, two-city theatrical production.

rubyslippers wrote:The show isn't the DISNEY spin on the story. The show is an new adaptation that combines aspects from the Disney film, the Berlin stage adaptation, the original novel, and brand new elements. Disney's name isn't even on the show's logo. It's not even in the same ballpark as The Little Mermaid stage adaptation, which was never meant to do more than flesh out the story and make it work on stage. The creative team behind Hunchback wanted to do more than that, and go back to the story's roots, to make it a richer, more complex story that focuses on the human elements of the story before anything else.

If Disney weren't sanctioning this, they'd be being sued into oblivion. Disney has promoted the show at D23. They may not be putting their name above the marquee (they just LOVE running away from Hunchback these days, and pretending they have nothing to do with it), but Disney are the ones who own the intellectual property rights to all of the music and songs, so, yeah, this kind of is the 'Disney spin' on the story.

rubyslippers wrote: Esmeralda doesn't die to "prove" anything. Again, there are these assumptions of the changes being made to "appeal" to people, rather than changes being made--or reverted, in this case--to capture the vision that the show's creative team has in mind.

And that's fine. But, why don't they just say that? Where are Trousdale and Wise and what are their thoughts? Or Don Hahn's? The original animators, writers, etc.? I'd love to hear that this was the vision from the beginning, if that's the case.

rubyslippers wrote: If you want the Disney film, watch the film. But the stage show is not inherently worse because they decided to have her die, nor is she dying to appease the book purists that in your mind somehow hold such magnificent sway over an expensive, two-city theatrical production.

I never said it was. But, the choice of language Menken and co. have been using in interviews seems, to me, to be SCREAMING, "PLEASE, Hugo-purists, we'll change whatever it takes, but we want YOU to love and embrace this!" They seem to be going out of their way to downplay the intricacies and magic and charm of the original film. And THAT'S what I have a problem with. Again, if this were Mermaid, do you think this type of language about 'getting back to the roots of the original story' would be CONSTANTLY harped on about? WHY do you think that's the case with Hunchback, then? Hmm?

PatrickvD wrote:Guess we have to agree to disagree. Because the scene with the little girl, to me, is corny and pretentious. I hated it when I first saw it and I still do today.

This is what I was thinking while I was reading, but I decided, "You know what? I'm going to sit this one out."

I actually like the idea of Esmeralda being shown ascending to Heaven here, although it does depend on how it's done. I'm not sure if the changes are because the film isn't regarded well by Disney themselves, an attempt to hew closer to the book, or just an addition for the sake of this adaptation (like many of the story changes in TLK, TLM and Aladdin, for instance). From what I've read, there are things I like and things I don't. Of course, I'm not a huge fan of the movie and probably won't be able to see this anyway, so, like I said, probably best for me to sit this one out.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:Guess we have to agree to disagree. Because the scene with the little girl, to me, is corny and pretentious. I hated it when I first saw it and I still do today.

This is what I was thinking while I was reading, but I decided, "You know what? I'm going to sit this one out."

And that's fine. We just have different tastes. I'm sure there are people who rolls their eyes when Ariel whispers, "I love you, daddy," to King Triton. I'm sure there are people who groan when the Beast transforms. I'm sure there are people who find it corny when the Genie tells Aladdin, "You'll always be a prince to me." It's almost a Disney touchstone now, to have that final, heart-warming, saccharine moment before wrapping things up. For me, personally, I found the scene of Anna becoming frozen in, well, Frozen, to be completely unemotional and, in fact, snorted, at the whole 'love thaws' thing. Different strokes.