DVDizzy Forum

Wao...this movie.

Honestly. If it wasn´t because I have a fondness for Aladdin and The Little Mermaid HUNCHBACK would have been my favorite Disney movie. Still, third place.

Anyways, I watched it yesterday and thought about Tony Jay´s interpretation of Frollo. Yes, Disney did amazing villains before and some after (not only in terms of design but voice acting) but Tony Jay and Frollo was a made match in Heaven (or Hell ). It´s amazing to behold.

...it´s kind of the same voice acting perfection as James Earl Jones.

Here´s hoping that eventually this movie will be found by audiences as the jewel it is.

Had the Gargoyles not been in it, I think this movie could have gotten the same critical acclaim the first four films got. I actually think its reception is getting better over time and I see people say that this film was ahead of its time. For me it's the best out of the latter Renaissance films.

In Roger Ebert's review, he never says anything bad about the gargoyles, and even quotes them for having important lessons:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the- ... -dame-1996

Hunchback is about my third or fourth favorite film, definitely after Little Mermaid and Aladdin as well for me.

John Grant in the Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters actually praises the gargoyles and considers Hunchback to be one of Disney's pitch-perfect films. He's also very praiseworthy of Pocahontas and doesn't really have anything critical to say of that film either which is refreshing to say the least.

Aside from the soundtrack (which is great but not my favorite from Menken) and Frollo as played by Tony Jay (who I already loved on ReBoot first), I've never been too fond of this one. I know I've said before that I enjoy it whenever I'm watching it and yet I very rarely seek it out, and that's still true. But I really do think this has to be UD / DVDizzy's favorite Disney film, hands down. People used to talk about this film so much years ago that it turned my apathy negative because I don't get it at all. I was really glad the movie rankings happened before the Hunchback love took over the forum, because I don't think it's as good as most of the big Disney films. Anyway, my feelings reverted back to apathy over time.

It's amazing to me the disconnect between what the fandom thinks, and how the Disney COMPANY chooses to merchandise things. It seemed, for the longest time, that there was some sort of dictum to not allow Post-Lion King films to be spotlighted at all (with the exception of Pocahontas & Mulan re: the Prince line-up, but, let's be real: that was about "diversity" more than anything). But, Hercules, especially, has seemingly been embraced of late. I'm seeing more merch than anytime since 1997, when the film was fresh and 'new.' Hunchback has BARELY started to... Funko has released some figures, Monogram key-chains did Quasi & Esmeralda, Disney has released a couple ornaments. But, for as beloved as it is here, and in other places where Disney fanatics congregate, you'd think you would see more than the trickle of stuff we've seen since '96. :/

ProfessorRatigan wrote:It's amazing to me the disconnect between what the fandom thinks, and how the Disney COMPANY chooses to merchandise things. It seemed, for the longest time, that there was some sort of dictum to not allow Post-Lion King films to be spotlighted at all (with the exception of Pocahontas & Mulan re: the Prince line-up, but, let's be real: that was about "diversity" more than anything). But, Hercules, especially, has seemingly been embraced of late. I'm seeing more merch than anytime since 1997, when the film was fresh and 'new.' Hunchback has BARELY started to... Funko has released some figures, Monogram key-chains did Quasi & Esmeralda, Disney has released a couple ornaments. But, for as beloved as it is here, and in other places where Disney fanatics congregate, you'd think you would see more than the trickle of stuff we've seen since '96. :/

It's also the only film out of the five to not have a Blu-ray release/rerelease with a digital code.
I think the merch thing is that Disney doesn't really know how to market this film nowadays because of its tones problems.

I think it's also difficult to market because Quasimodo isn't exactly a character who pushes a lot of merchandise. Even back in 1996, they sold mostly Esmeralda products or Quasimodo WITH Esmeralda. Which makes sense as a marketing technique because their female characters tended to sell better (Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas) compared to their male leads (Hercules, Tarzan, I'm sure you could include Beast and Aladdin here as well).

What I don´t get is that Disney is Disney. They know they have an adult fanbase. And their animated Classics are not hundreds of them. So they should learn to value and promote ALL their movies.

Watched this film again and it really amazes me everytime how beautiful it is. I think this is Disney's best attempt at depicting and handling the issues of racism, misogyny and ableism, better than Zootopia for instance. It's actually surprising me how underappreciated it is. I said it before but this film was really ahead of its time. I really like how Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale brought more maturity to their films, first with Beauty and the Beast, then with this and even Atlantis (though I didn't really like it).

Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are two of Disney's most mature films, if not the most mature. Hunchback is even more beautiful and has better animation. I don't really like Atlantis either, though I had a small obsession with it when it first came out and I was a kid.

farerb wrote:Watched this film again and it really amazes me everytime how beautiful it is. I think this is Disney's best attempt at depicting and handling the issues of racism, misogyny and ableism, better than Zootopia for instance. It's actually surprising me how underappreciated it is. I said it before but this film was really ahead of its time. I really like how Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale brought more maturity to their films, first with Beauty and the Beast, then with this and even Atlantis (though I didn't really like it).

I agree, it's the best film with those topics, better than Zootopia or even Pocahontas, imo. Zootopia wants to remain light-hearted too much to go the full way with its idea, and Pocahontas is... Well, not a horrible film or anything, but I don't think its messages are executed as well as they could've been.

I never liked Atlantis growing up. It's only been in the last few years, the film has grown on me. I even like Milo now, where I used to find the character annoying at one time.

farerb wrote:Watched this film again and it really amazes me everytime how beautiful it is. I think this is Disney's best attempt at depicting and handling the issues of racism, misogyny and ableism, better than Zootopia for instance. It's actually surprising me how underappreciated it is. I said it before but this film was really ahead of its time. I really like how Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale brought more maturity to their films, first with Beauty and the Beast, then with this and even Atlantis (though I didn't really like it).

For me, my basic litmus test is that if somebody doesn't like this film, they aren't worth anything to me because I know what their values (or lack of values) are then.

JeanGreyForever wrote:

farerb wrote:Watched this film again and it really amazes me everytime how beautiful it is. I think this is Disney's best attempt at depicting and handling the issues of racism, misogyny and ableism, better than Zootopia for instance. It's actually surprising me how underappreciated it is. I said it before but this film was really ahead of its time. I really like how Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale brought more maturity to their films, first with Beauty and the Beast, then with this and even Atlantis (though I didn't really like it).

For me, my basic litmus test is that if somebody doesn't like this film, they aren't worth anything to me because I know what their values (or lack of values) are then.

Wow Jean! Don't you think that is a bit extreme? Surely at least some of the movie's dissenters will dislike it from a film-making perspective and not necessarily because they disagree with the film's message or values.

Disclosure: I love the film to bits.

Jules wrote:

JeanGreyForever wrote: For me, my basic litmus test is that if somebody doesn't like this film, they aren't worth anything to me because I know what their values (or lack of values) are then.

Wow Jean! Don't you think that is a bit extreme? Surely at least some of the movie's dissenters will dislike it from a film-making perspective and not necessarily because they disagree with the film's message or values.

Disclosure: I love the film to bits.

It was a little bit of hyperbole but I should clarify. It's not so much a matter of having to love this film for its artistic vision or music, but more a matter for the film's basic humanity. If someone could watch this film and not feel for Quasimodo's situation or empathize with Esmeralda and the plight of the Romani, that would tell me their basic core values. If the intolerance in the film doesn't affect them at all and they find themselves completely unmoved by Frollo attempting to commit mass genocide all because one woman spurned him (and rightfully so), then I know right away that this is a person who lacks a connection with his or her basic humanity and I don't want anything to do with that person.

In other words, I'm not gonna hate somebody just because they didn't like a specific song on the film or was upset by the gargoyles. But I am pleased to hear that you love the movie. Always good to know lol.

Actually another part of the "litmus test" is those who slutshame Esmeralda and call her all the expletives usually reserved for women because she didn't choose Quasimodo over Phoebus. At best she'll be called a gold digger or something about being selfish and choosing Phoebus' looks over Quasimodo's heart, or some nonsense about leading Quasi on and trying to seduce him. If someone can watch this film and feel that Quasimodo, as dear a soul as he is, is entitled to Esmeralda just because he's a "nice guy," that really makes them no different than Frollo in my book. It's a very dangerous mentality and proves that in the real world, the incel subculture very much exists and is willing to rob a woman of her agency because they feel they are owed something.

So...

I have a friend who is a big Disney fan, but there are certain films she never got around to watching... one of them being Hunchback. I encouraged her to do so... and she finally did a few days ago. And then she sent me a loooooong text with all her issues with the film. Let's just say it didn't crack the top ten for her...

On of her objections was inclusion of bestiality, because Hugo is in love with the goat.... yeah, that one was laughable.

But she did bring up the beginning of the film, and that got me thinking. The archdeacon witnesses Frollo kill the mother... and almost drown baby Quasi... and his solution was to have Frollo be the parent?? This clearly cruel man.... I get that there were no orphanages(?) back then, and no social services... but what's the logic here?

Looking for opinions / insights...

Marce82 wrote:The archdeacon witnesses Frollo kill the mother... and almost drown baby Quasi... and his solution was to have Frollo be the parent?? This clearly cruel man.... I get that there were no orphanages(?) back then, and no social services... but what's the logic here?

As you mentioned, that one bad solution might be the one and only solution to secure baby Quasimodo's survival.

This is a tough movie with some dark medieval depictions, better get used to it with this one..

Clindor may be right. Also, Frollo may have been allowed to kill that gypsy and drown a gypsy baby. It may have been seen as law. I don't know. But if none of that true, then yes, that is a huge flaw to this film!

Marce82 wrote:The archdeacon witnesses Frollo kill the mother... and almost drown baby Quasi... and his solution was to have Frollo be the parent?? This clearly cruel man.... I get that there were no orphanages(?) back then, and no social services... but what's the logic here?

The only logic I can think of is that the Archdeacon is trying to guilt Frollo to save his soul from Hell. Or perhaps the Archdeacon was also trying to help gypsies in general at the same time by making Frollo feel the full weight of what he'd done re:spilling innocent blood mercilessly--not even caring that it happened on the steps of a church--and the Archdeacon thought caring for a gypsy child would help Frollo to see gypsies as human instead of an evil, sinful Other (ideally the love for the child would replace the hatred in his heart). Frollo failed that test entirely, ofc. He never even attempted to love Quasimodo; from the first moment he was thinking about what the child might one day do for him.

Oh, I get what he was trying to do regarding Frollo.... but I don't get his intent for the child. True, being raised by Frollo would mean financial stability/privilege... but cmon, this is a guy who had just almost killed him!

Wouldn't any other solution be better for the child? (other than abandonment)

Side note: ironically, other than the bestiality issue, my friend did not complain about the gargoyles.