Ideas to improve "Hunchback"

[Mooky]

Some movies, yes. Disney movies never do. Name one Disney movie that showed protagonist's internal thoughts, musings and conflicts without the significant use of sidekicks.

And yet Hunchback is not like most Disney films. Developing characters internally probably would've made the film's attempt to be more "mature" successful. As for past Disney films, they have used song before as a way to develop characters without only playing off other characters--Belle (reprise), Part of Your World (reprise), Goodbye May Seem Forever, etc.

The film is mature enough. It deals with heavy themes surprisingly well enough for a Disney film and never feels incomplete or suddenly eschews dealing with its subject (religious hypocrisy and prejudices) when a more convenient plot point comes across, unlike its immediate predecessor which also tried going for a mature route. The sole fact that this film rubs many people the wrong way (for various reasons) and is being silently swept under the rug by Disney for not being able to market it properly is a proof it did what it set to do. And I was under impression we weren't talking about songs initially, otherwise I would have mentioned them, as I have in my reply to Marce82. This discussion is about sidekicks' effect on the plot and the main characters, regardless of other ways of developing main characters (songs being the primary way).

I wasn't arbitrary at all, I just listed reasons why some sidekicks work and some doesn't, and I never said those characters are or should be devoid of any type of humor.

You were being arbitrary, by deciding which characters were important to the plot over others, when some of your choices have no other purpose than to be comic relief (like Flit and Meeko, Pegasus, et al).

I wasn't deciding anything, it's crystal clear from the films themselves which characters have a point to them and which don't. Pocahontas didn't gain anything from Meeko and Flit being comic relief, in fact, it would have probably been better if they remained silent background animals.

Heck, all the positive examples I listed are comic relief characters. The point here is the thing you do with those characters other than having them as comic relief. Since you pretty much explained Timon and Pumbaa's influence on the main plot and the protagonist (which I argued for anyway), I just don't understand the issue you and everyone else have with the gargoyles when they were clearly designed with the same intention in mind.

Except the gargoyles have no other purpose than to be comic relief--they don't add anything else beyond that--they are not in the same category as T&P, Mushu, or BEN.

How many times are you going to repeat this when it's clearly not the case? Read The_Iceflash's post. They are vital for Quasimodo's development. If it weren't for them, Quasimodo would have grown up believing Frollo's indoctrination. Gargoyles were practically his other foster parents, they raised and encouraged him, cared for him, provided companionship, instilled some doubts about Frollo's motives in Quasimodo AND served as comic relief. You're totally right, they're not in the Mushu and B.E.N. category, they're even better than that.

Sorry, that is just silly. If archdeacon's role had been expanded at the expense of gargoyles', I can bet he would have been cracking jokes, and be voiced by, say, Michael Richards. This is a Disney movie, if the gargoyles weren't in the film, it would have been something else of the same ilk. Talking pidgeons, perhaps. Just be lucky it weren't talking bells.

And that is why the gargoyles are hated--because they are an example of Disney's refusal to change or take risks. It's the same reason this film and most ever other film in the '90s after TLK is accused of being formulaic.

I don't believe that is the only reason. The entire film was a huge risk and it paid off (at least artistically). Disney formula was more prominent in pre- and post-THoND films and I don't see them being subjected to the same scrutiny as Hunchback is. In fact, gargoyles and the film being a musical are probably the only instances of the film following Disney formula to a T. Its themes and the ending most certainly aren't.

Flounder does speak.

Enough to make an impact? He is mostly silent, giving someone for Ariel to talk about her issues to, though he rarely responds to her.

Try to imagine just Ariel's opening scene without Flounder. You wouldn't have full insight into her interests (why is she picking up all this junk? Without her addressing Flounder we wouldn't know they're for her collection), you wouldn't see her courage and determination, all of which play a significant part later on.

And, personally, Flit/Meeko/Pascal are far superior to the gargoyles--in every way. One of the first reasons is because they are silent.

I'm sorry, after the bolded part, I can't believe you're serious about this.

For that to work, the character would actually have to be mute, like in the novel.

The character wouldn't have to be mute to talk to himself.

Go and read my post again. A character that is constantly talking to himself/herself in a Disney movie would be perceived as insane. If your idea of Quasimodo expressing himself through anything other than conversation with gargoyles is to work, character would have to be mute (or remain silent, whichever you prefer) and express himself solely through his actions, which you would have never been able to see in a '90s Disney film.

Wait...Mooky... Maurice is Belle's sidekick???? Thats ridiculous. Maurice is a secondary character.

I said "can be considered", not "is".

From Wikipedia:

Sidekicks can provide one or multiple functions, such as a counterpoint to the hero,[4] an alternate point of view, or knowledge, skills, or anything else the hero does not have. They often function as comic relief,[4] and/or the straight man to the hero's comedic actions. A sidekick can also act as someone that the audience can relate to better than the hero, or whom the audience can imagine themselves as being (such as teen sidekicks).[3] And by asking questions of the hero, or giving the hero someone to talk to, the sidekick provides an opportunity for the author to provide exposition, thereby filling the same role as a Greek chorus.

[Disney's Divinity]

The film is mature enough.
..
And I was under impression we weren't talking about songs initially, otherwise I would have mentioned them, as I have in my reply to Marce82. This discussion is about sidekicks' effect on the plot and the main characters, regardless of other ways of developing main characters (songs being the primary way).

It does try. If only the gargoyles didn't make the tone so inconsistent.

And thank you for telling me what the "Ideas to improve Hunchback" thread is about.

I wasn't deciding anything, it's crystal clear from the films themselves which characters have a point to them and which don't. Pocahontas didn't gain anything from Meeko and Flit being comic relief, in fact, it would have probably been better if they remained silent background animals.

You were deciding what counts as purposeful and what doesn't, and I didn't agree on several counts. And Meeko and Flit are silent!

How many times are you going to repeat this when it's clearly not the case? Read The_Iceflash's post.

I'll read The_Iceflash's post and you can read Marce82's post. The gargoyles offer nothing that couldn't have been done easily without them.

I don't believe that is the only reason. The entire film was a huge risk and it paid off (at least artistically). Disney formula was more prominent in pre- and post-THoND films and I don't see them being subjected to the same scrutiny as Hunchback is. In fact, gargoyles and the film being a musical are probably the only instances of the film following Disney formula to a T. Its themes and the ending most certainly aren't.

It paid off? This and Pocahontas are most cited as the beginning of the end for the Disney renaissance--I'd hardly call that "successful." The movie's themes are almost exactly like B&tB and TLM mixed together--from the focus on looks v. what's on the inside (Frollo v. Quasimodo--"Who is the monster and who is the man?"--virtually the same as Beast v. Gaston, one who looks like a beast while the other is the real beast), to Ariel's desire to escape to the outside world away from her father, a father figure who is also racist/xenophobic and a patriarch just like Frollo.

And, personally, Flit/Meeko/Pascal are far superior to the gargoyles--in every way. One of the first reasons is because they are silent.

I'm sorry, after the bolded part, I can't believe you're serious about this.

This coming from someone defending the gargoyles from The Hunchback of Notre Dame! High praise.

Go and read my post again. A character that is constantly talking to himself/herself in a Disney movie would be perceived as insane.

I'm not going to re-read your posts because your change of argument from post to post inclines me to believe you are insane.

[ProfessorRatigan]

^BatB and Hunchback are noticeably different. Quasimodo starts out a good, but sheltered person. By the end, he is accepted. He does not undergo a physical transformation, but a spiritual and emotional one. The Beast, however, starts out a monster. A violent, ill-tempered bully. Gaston starts out a buffoon, but essentially just a dude. As that film progresses, the Beast becomes more human, more man-like while Gaston denigrates from man to monster. Neither of those things happen in Hunchback. Quasi is perceived a monster because of his appearance, but in action he always was a good person. The opposite is true of Frollo. Who is the monster, who is man is not a 'beauty is found within' parable. It is, instead, a lesson on how our ACTIONS affect who and what we are. There is a decided difference. They are similar, but they are NOT the same.

And the Gargoyles, I've said before, do nothing but affect the tone of the film whilst trying to cheer Quasimodo up and encourage him to better himself, to convince him he needs to act. That's their crime. Timon and Pumbaa do the SAME fucking thing in their film, completely running it off the rails, in my opinion. Because they are just THROWN in right after the most dark sequence in the film. It is exactly like the Spring song in Bambi: too jarring. And a flaw. But NOBODY seems to have a problem with them, their hedonistic philosophy or their obscenely unfunny shtick.

Actually, the Gargoyles are responsible for one of my favorite moments in the film: Quasimodo is chained to the foundation of the cathedral, forced to watch Esmeralda burn at the stake. He has given up. The Gargoyles are there, once again, to encourage him to break free. "These chains aren't what's holding you back, Quasi!" Laverne chides. "-LEAVE ME ALONE!" says Quasimodo. The Gargoyles back away, hurt. "Sure. We'll leave you alone." "-After all, we're only made out of stone." "-We just thought YOU were made of something stronger..." This is an affecting scene. I ask you: how the HELL could this scene have worked and not seemed completely fucking stupid if Quasimodo were talking to himself?

[qindarka]

^BatB and Hunchback are noticeably different. Quasimodo starts out a good, but sheltered person. By the end, he is accepted. He does not undergo a physical transformation, but a spiritual and emotional one. The Beast, however, starts out a monster. A violent, ill-tempered bully. Gaston starts out a buffoon, but essentially just a dude. As that film progresses, the Beast becomes more human, more man-like while Gaston denigrates from man to monster. Neither of those things happen in Hunchback. Quasi is perceived a monster because of his appearance, but in action he always was a good person. The opposite is true of Frollo. Who is the monster, who is man is not a 'beauty is found within' parable. It is, instead, a lesson on how our ACTIONS affect who and what we are. There is a decided difference. They are similar, but they are NOT the same.

And the Gargoyles, I've said before, do nothing but affect the tone of the film whilst trying to cheer Quasimodo up and encourage him to better himself, to convince him he needs to act. That's their crime. Timon and Pumbaa do the SAME fucking thing in their film, completely running it off the rails, in my opinion. Because they are just THROWN in right after the most dark sequence in the film. It is exactly like the Spring song in Bambi: too jarring. And a flaw. But NOBODY seems to have a problem with them, their hedonistic philosophy or their obscenely unfunny shtick.

Actually, the Gargoyles are responsible for one of my favorite moments in the film: Quasimodo is chained to the foundation of the cathedral, forced to watch Esmeralda burn at the stake. He has given up. The Gargoyles are there, once again, to encourage him to break free. "These chains aren't what's holding you back, Quasi!" Laverne chides. "-LEAVE ME ALONE!" says Quasimodo. The Gargoyles back away, hurt. "Sure. We'll leave you alone." "-After all, we're only made out of stone." "-We just thought YOU were made of something stronger..." This is an affecting scene. I ask you: how the HELL could this scene have worked and not seemed completely fucking stupid if Quasimodo were talking to himself?

Timon and Pumbaa are nothing like the gargoyles. They are not there to encourage Simba and convince him to act, rather to provide a philosophy that runs counter to the real message of the film. That's why nobody has a problem with their hedonistic philosophy, it is clearly shown in the film to be wrong.

[ProfessorRatigan]

But that's the problem. It NEVER is shown in the film to be wrong. Never do Timon & Pumbaa have to turn to one another and say, "Geez, Pumbaa. Maybe running from your problems ISN'T the answer. Maybe Hakuna Matata isn't the way. Maybe you do have to face your problems head on to live a fulfilling, happy life."

No. It doesn't happen. Children in the audience see nothing wrong with Hakuna Matata, because, hey! Toe-tapping showstopping number! Funny characters! ( ) Colors! Easy-to-remember rhymes!

Instead, Timon & Pumbaa are held up as heroes, all of a sudden coming to Simba's aide FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Unless there was a deleted scene explaining WHY the sudden change occurred in them, this is a flaw. And a very, very big one at that. But it gets overlooked because it's the Lion King.

[qindarka]

Perhaps Timon and Pumbaa didn't have that conversation but Simba clearly does come to the realisation that he must accept his responsibilities, contrary to the values of Hakuna Matata, and Simba is the main character.

Also, I think that the scene where Timon and Pumbaa do go along with Simba to fight Scar shows that they too are rejecting the principles of Hakuna Matata, that instead of continuing to laze around in the forest, they are willing to assume their responsibilities towards a friend. Granted, this isn't very clear and could be entirely my interpretation.

Yes, and I do know that many viewers (children, as you say) take Hakuna Matata at face value and this is unfortunate.

[Disney's Divinity]

Who is the monster, who is man is not a 'beauty is found within' parable. It is, instead, a lesson on how our ACTIONS affect who and what we are.

How is that any different from B&tB--where Beast's monstrous actions as a child (and early in the film) are what has caused his forms, in other words "affecting who and what" he is?

True, what we find in Hunchback with Quasimodo is not nearly as complex as a character like Beast, who has to actually go from A to B. But they both share the theme that one's ability to be good is not pre-determined by their appearances--Frollo/Gaston are not automatically good because they are normal, human or attractive, and Quasimodo/Beast are not necessarily evil despite their monstrous appearances. If anything, Hunchback is more superficial.

[ajmrowland]

But that's the problem. It NEVER is shown in the film to be wrong. Never do Timon & Pumbaa have to turn to one another and say, "Geez, Pumbaa. Maybe running from your problems ISN'T the answer. Maybe Hakuna Matata isn't the way. Maybe you do have to face your problems head on to live a fulfilling, happy life."

No. It doesn't happen. Children in the audience see nothing wrong with Hakuna Matata, because, hey! Toe-tapping showstopping number! Funny characters! ( ) Colors! Easy-to-remember rhymes!

Instead, Timon & Pumbaa are held up as heroes, all of a sudden coming to Simba's aide FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Unless there was a deleted scene explaining WHY the sudden change occurred in them, this is a flaw. And a very, very big one at that. But it gets overlooked because it's the Lion King.

except in that Mufasa scene. It's never *shown* to be wrong, but the past caught up with simba and he's just as confused as the kids.

[The_Iceflash]

Perhaps Timon and Pumbaa didn't have that conversation but Simba clearly does come to the realisation that he must accept his responsibilities, contrary to the values of Hakuna Matata, and Simba is the main character.

Also, I think that the scene where Timon and Pumbaa do go along with Simba to fight Scar shows that they too are rejecting the principles of Hakuna Matata, that instead of continuing to laze around in the forest, they are willing to assume their responsibilities towards a friend. Granted, this isn't very clear and could be entirely my interpretation.

Yes, and I do know that many viewers (children, as you say) take Hakuna Matata at face value and this is unfortunate.

Kids aren't that stupid. I, as a very young child seeing this in theaters, got this message. We don't need the message explicitly told to us. It was clear Simba going back and facing his past was the right decision. Even Timon and Pumba, who didn't want him to leave, ended up standing by his side and they learned about responsibility. Of course there's the whole "The past does hurt" scene with Rafiki and the scene with Mufasa coming to him as well that makes this point clear.

What I don't get, as the same criticism was said about the "Stick to the Status Quo" song in HSM, is that because there's a song in the film, contrast to the moral of the story (as there should be in a musical) kids aren't going to get the correct moral or get the wrong message. Kids are smarter than that. Clearly they understand the moral of HSM and Lion King. No kid is going to say "Stick to the Status Quo" is the moral of HSM. Kids know Simba going back was the right thing. They saw it.

[qindarka]

I'm sorry about the children part. Was wrong to assume.

[Mooky]

The film is mature enough.
..
And I was under impression we weren't talking about songs initially, otherwise I would have mentioned them, as I have in my reply to Marce82. This discussion is about sidekicks' effect on the plot and the main characters, regardless of other ways of developing main characters (songs being the primary way).

It does try. If only the gargoyles didn't make the tone so inconsistent.

And thank you for telling me what the "Ideas to improve Hunchback" thread is about.

You're welcome. You always seem a bit busy laughing at your own quips, I thought you may have lost your way around the thread.

I wasn't deciding anything, it's crystal clear from the films themselves which characters have a point to them and which don't. Pocahontas didn't gain anything from Meeko and Flit being comic relief, in fact, it would have probably been better if they remained silent background animals.

You were deciding what counts as purposeful and what doesn't, and I didn't agree on several counts. And Meeko and Flit are silent!

Silent animal


Silent background animal


Silent animal


Silent background animal


Notice the difference?

How many times are you going to repeat this when it's clearly not the case? Read The_Iceflash's post.

I'll read The_Iceflash's post and you can read Marce82's post. The gargoyles offer nothing that couldn't have been done easily without them.

I have read and replied to Marce82's posts. You, on the other hand, keep ignoring The_Iceflash's, ProfessorRatigan's and my posts, and keep repeating your mantra how gargoyles were totally unnecessary. So by all means, continue doing just that, if you repeat it a few more times, maybe it'll finally become true.

I don't believe that is the only reason. The entire film was a huge risk and it paid off (at least artistically). Disney formula was more prominent in pre- and post-THoND films and I don't see them being subjected to the same scrutiny as Hunchback is. In fact, gargoyles and the film being a musical are probably the only instances of the film following Disney formula to a T. Its themes and the ending most certainly aren't.

It paid off? This and Pocahontas are most cited as the beginning of the end for the Disney renaissance--I'd hardly call that "successful." The movie's themes are almost exactly like B&tB and TLM mixed together--from the focus on looks v. what's on the inside (Frollo v. Quasimodo--"Who is the monster and who is the man?"--virtually the same as Beast v. Gaston, one who looks like a beast while the other is the real beast), to Ariel's desire to escape to the outside world away from her father, a father figure who is also racist/xenophobic and a patriarch just like Frollo

Have you even read what I wrote? "It paid off (at least artistically)". And while these two may have signaled the end of the Disney renaissance for you and everyone else who cares about such manufactured terminology, for me Disney only started losing creative touch when they went back to playing it safe, sometimes around 2007/08 and continue to do so.

And I might have agreed with you on the BatB claims, but you dragged TLM into it, which has absolutely no thematic similarities to Hunchback. Next you'll tell us Ratatouille shares Hunchback's themes, because it too features a "desire to escape ... from ... a father figure who is also racist/xenophobic and a patriarch".

I'm sorry, after the bolded part, I can't believe you're serious about this.

This coming from someone defending the gargoyles from The Hunchback of Notre Dame! High praise.

And I'll continue defending them from people who jump on the unjustified criticism bandwagon all the while turning a blind eye on other similar or worse Disney characters. High praise indeed.

Go and read my post again. A character that is constantly talking to himself/herself in a Disney movie would be perceived as insane.

I'm not going to re-read your posts because your change of argument from post to post inclines me to believe you are insane.

Now that you've mentioned it, yes, I must be insane, because for the life of me, I can't remember where my arguments contradicted one another. Then again, I'm not the one who, in the absence of arguments, resorts to personal insults thinly disguised as sarcasm. So, coming from you, that almost feels like a compliment.

I won't bother replying to your posts anymore. Good day to you, sir.

[Disney's Divinity]

I’m glad. I’m not sure why I got myself involved in an argument with a fan; they never see the flaws.

[The_Iceflash]

I’m glad. I’m not sure why I got myself involved in an argument with a fan; they never see the flaws.

This is implying your opinions are fact. Bottom line, in general, the "problem" with the gargoyles, IMO, have been overblown over the years, as is all "problems" with sidekicks. This goes for all sidekicks from the Gargoyles to Jar Jar Binks.

[Disney's Divinity]

This is implying your opinions are fact.

Only people who get pissed off when someone disagrees have to make that clarification, since every post on the Internet is of course an opinion. You and plenty of others can pretend that the large amount of criticism of the gargoyles is overblown, if it makes you feel vindicated. That's your own right to an opinion.