DVDizzy Forum

You know that's not a bad assumption.

I had this one assumption and i know Disney wouldn't dive into it because it would offend audiences, but it was that possibly the mother got raped or something.

Yeah. I know. I'm probably going to deep into it. But think about it.

Scarred4life wrote:I was always under the impression that the gypsy was Quasi's adoptive mother, and that explains why the two men (assuming one of them was the mothers husband) didn't care about Quasi ('Shut him up will you' 'We'll be spotted').

Well, I know that in the novel, Quasi was born to the Gypsies, but was switched with Esmerelda. Not that that is relevant to the film's portrayal of characters, but I think no matter what, Quasi is of Gypsy heritage. His pale appearance is probably from lack of sunshine; he's not out as much as others. And his red hair... I have no clue. :-\

As for those saying Esmerelda ending up with Quasimodo, I can agree it wouldn't have been realistic; it's just sad, but "bittersweet" since he was accepted by the town's people in the end.

I cant really make a fully - fledged opinion on this, as I havnt read the book all the way through, but it does make me wonder; which Disney employee read this book and thought, "Yes ! Here lies a fabulous animated musical !" From what I have read of it; it felt like it would have been too 'different' a premise from Disney's Lagacy.

I am in no way bashing the film, as I really love it and respect it for being that little bit different from past DAC, but it still bears the Disney soul, as it were.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I cant really make a fully - fledged opinion on this, as I havnt read the book all the way through, but it does make me wonder; which Disney employee read this book and thought, "Yes ! Here lies a fabulous animated musical !" From what I have read of it; it felt like it would have been too 'different' a premise from Disney's Lagacy.

I feel the same way about Hercules. There is absolutely nothing family-friendly about the original Greek myth and the Disney version pays extremely little resemblance to it, aside from Hercules' strength, the god's roles and character names. Instead, they pretty much took Superman, dressed it in Greek clothing and added a whole load of pop-culture references.

So, what motivated Ron and John to make a film about Hercules (aside from allowing them to get Treasure Planet green-lit)? But, I'm getting off-topic here, sorry.

I know exactly what you mean estefan, and its not really off-topic; what/who motivates Disney to make DAC a out of the source material ? Obviously, I know the directors search around for new ideas and such, but what makes them pick the things that they do.

Does anyone know the story behind why THOND was picked ?

estefan wrote:

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I cant really make a fully - fledged opinion on this, as I havnt read the book all the way through, but it does make me wonder; which Disney employee read this book and thought, "Yes ! Here lies a fabulous animated musical !" From what I have read of it; it felt like it would have been too 'different' a premise from Disney's Lagacy.

I feel the same way about Hercules. There is absolutely nothing family-friendly about the original Greek myth and the Disney version pays extremely little resemblance to it, aside from Hercules' strength, the god's roles and character names. Instead, they pretty much took Superman, dressed it in Greek clothing and added a whole load of pop-culture references.

So, what motivated Ron and John to make a film about Hercules (aside from allowing them to get Treasure Planet green-lit)? But, I'm getting off-topic here, sorry.

you forgot adding in Christians themes in a greek story.

Super Aurora wrote:

estefan wrote: I feel the same way about Hercules. There is absolutely nothing family-friendly about the original Greek myth and the Disney version pays extremely little resemblance to it, aside from Hercules' strength, the god's roles and character names. Instead, they pretty much took Superman, dressed it in Greek clothing and added a whole load of pop-culture references.

So, what motivated Ron and John to make a film about Hercules (aside from allowing them to get Treasure Planet green-lit)? But, I'm getting off-topic here, sorry.

you forgot adding in Christians themes in a greek story.

Hardly the first time, Goddess of Spring did the same decades before. On the same note, who in the studio thought 'I think 'The Rape of Persephone' would make a swell Silly Symphony!'

Someday... wrote: Hardly the first time, Goddess of Spring did the same decades before.

Still stupid though.

As great as Hunchback of Notre Dame is we all can´t deny it´s faults. Mainly, the gargoyles. If it weren´t for the gargoyles the movie would have been much better.

Still, for a while I thought that as a Disney movie they´d have to add something for the kids. But then there´s The Lion King. If Disney could make this movie how come they were scared to go ahead and kept Hunchback with the adult vibe it had?

I don´t get it.

Anyone has an opinion that like to share?

The Lion King had talking animals as it's protagonists, so maybe the issue of being "too real" was not present. What's the biggest issue in Lion King? A bad guy took the throne deceitfully? Yeah, American audiences can totally relate to that horrid occurrence. It's not bad, it's just clear that one can put some distance from the movie and themselves because the topics discussed aren't as relatable.

Meanwhile, Hunchback touches on subjects of lust, religion, deformity, and racism/ prejudice. These issues are very much present in modern society, sometimes in combination with one another. Many people have experienced one or many of them as well, so it becomes a "truth toucher" which makes the film more "real" and therefore make life seem more dark and somber. Very heavy stuffy for kids to realize if there isn't some sort of comic relief to take a breather. So I guess the Gargoyles were added to compensate for the dark tone, which came off as annoying because they were trying too hard to make people laugh.

Personally, I wish they made a human or two the comic reliefs. Clopin kinda is, but he's sorta under developed.

Timon and Pumbaa are two of the most obnoxious comic relief sidekicks ever They make fart jokes, break the 4th wall, and hog the airtime in the entire second half of the movie. People who act like TLK is an example of a "serious" Disney masterpiece seem to ignore this fact. I can't imagine the backlash if Olaf was half as obnoxious as them.

The gargoyles are obnoxious but not quite as awful as their reputation. They're easy to ignore and the rest of the movie is fantastic.

Because they wanted toys.

The Lion King is not as serious as people make it out to be, anyone remember the I can't wait to be King number? There was already comedy without Timon and Pumbaa.

Not to mention the hyenas and jokes at Zazu's expense.

I would say a vast amount of Disney movies will be a dramedy where there will be dramatic and comedic moments.

I also think that it helps that Scar was much more lighthearted and theatrical as a villain than Frollo. They were still both threats, but Frollo (obviously) felt like a real life "bad guy", so the conflict was more serious. Also, Scar having the hyenas as henchmen evened the comic relief out. I think that every scene in the Lion King fits the overall tone of the story. Since there is so much comic relief (not only Timon and Pumbaa or the Hyenas, but also Zazu and kind of Rafiki), I consider it to be mainly a comedy, but it also works in it's emotional moments well so nothing feels really out of place to me. Hunchback on the other hand, Frollo would be killing innocent civilians and having obvious sexual urges in one scene and then the next scene the gargoyles would feel as if they stepped out of a completely different movie for a completely different audience.

However, I do really like Clopin alone as comic relief, mostly because a lot of his jokes count as dark comedy, which fits the tone of the movie. He doesn't feel out of place and fits in with the setting and as a narrator.

You know even the Gargoyles fit in a subtle sort of way. Mainly because in the book Quasimodo was said to have conversations with the gargoyles.

Lady Cluck wrote:Timon and Pumbaa are two of the most obnoxious comic relief sidekicks ever They make fart jokes, break the 4th wall, and hog the airtime in the entire second half of the movie. People who act like TLK is an example of a "serious" Disney masterpiece seem to ignore this fact. I can't imagine the backlash if Olaf was half as obnoxious as them.

Timon & Pumbaa awful? I loved those guys! I even loved their spin-off TV series that they had, which could hardly be considered the same continuity as the film with all those random characters and over-the-top Ren & Stimpy style plotlines and whatnot, but I didn't care cause I enjoyed watching them anyway. They were certainly enjoyable enough characters in The Lion King to have their own cartoon as far as I was concerned.

Lady Cluck wrote:Timon and Pumbaa are two of the most obnoxious comic relief sidekicks ever They make fart jokes, break the 4th wall, and hog the airtime in the entire second half of the movie. People who act like TLK is an example of a "serious" Disney masterpiece seem to ignore this fact. I can't imagine the backlash if Olaf was half as obnoxious as them.

The gargoyles are obnoxious but not quite as awful as their reputation. They're easy to ignore and the rest of the movie is fantastic.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I've always felt this way, even as a kid and I was far less critical of either film then than I am now. But, try telling this to any of the, "OMGZ, teh Lion King is the deepest, darkest, most emotionally damaging and srious Disney movie EVAR!" crowd. They can't accept the fact that many find Timon and Pumbaa to be insufferable. FAR more so than the harmless (and, in my opinion) sometimes even charming, Gargoyles

I never found the Gargoyles that annoying in the first place.

Ill-fitting, yes, but overall not bad characters in their own right. Laverne gives good advice to Quasimodo here and there.

In a way they contribute more than Djali, who's just there in the movie to look cute and shares none of the importance his counterpart in the book has (who leads to Esmeralda's downfall ironically enough).

I wouldn't be surprised if it was creative differences who lead to the creation of the gargoyles. Animators on one side wanting to develop a mature story, while the executives choking them and forcing them to insert more plush dolls in case the kids run away...

That and the post Genie syndrome, that after Disney full understood the success of Aladdin they tried to force Genie wannabes in the later films. The fat gargoyle, Phil, Mushu, Rosie O'Donnel's gorilla...Just hoping for one of them to be the new Robin Williams.

My main issue with Hunchback aren't the gargoyles, but how the film manages to throw in humor at the expence of many of the darkest moments. Djali punching Phoebus right before Frollo grabs Esmeralda. And the climax, where the awkward comedy prevails. And not to mention the placing of "A Guy Like You". As grating as the Gargoyles are, I don't find them to be the biggest problem. As a kid I enjoyed them, so they fulfilled their purpose. But the biggest weakness of "Hunchback" is the placing of awkward, juvenile humor in general in a dark, controversial story. They should have balanced it more.