DVDizzy Forum

The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Tarzan: Two films from the Disney Renaissance, both musicals, both featuring male leads with family background issues, and both having arguably more violence than Disney is used to.

Which is the better film in your eyes, as far as music, story, characters, themes, etc.?

I came in here to say that this ones pretty much a no-brainer, but I see someone has already voted for Tarzan! I think Hunchback is easily the better film, in pretty much every aspect you could argue over. That said, I think Tarzan has a higher re-watchability value. It's more fun. But as a film, Hunchback has to be the winner.

Oh my gosh! The voting works now!!

As for my vote, I'd say Hunchback. I love Tarzan, but I kinda prefer Hunchback, though Tarzan is pretty awesome as well.

^ I think the fellow who voted for Tarzan is Disney's Divinity. Hunchback is superior in my view too.

Hunchback is flawed, yes, and its animation quality and style aren't anything special, yet if you look at characters and story, and the way it works on a purely emotional level, it's certainly one of the most outstanding features in the DAC canon. Frollo alone makes the film stand out from other films of the second half of the Renaissance. Finally, a Disney villain with remarkable complexity and realism (apart from Lady Tremaine, who had a realistic sociopathic feel to her, even if she wasn't developed) who still manages to be creepy and a love-to-hate character! It probably isn't a patch on the novel - I have never read it, so I cannot say so with absolute certainty - yet compared to other animated features of its time, it's quite unique in its depth and darkness. As for Tarzan...well, when I was very young, Tarzan was one of my favourites, but since then, I have not been particularly drawn to it. I'm not exactly sure why. From my recollections, it's unequivocally a superior film than Mulan, Pocahontas, Hercules and The Lion King: the tense early scenes with Sabor are extremely well-edited and suspenseful, and Karla's relationship with the young Tarzan is charming, as is that atmospheric, superb first meeting between Tarzan and Jane. It has Terk and Tantor spoiling it, but Hunchback has the Gargoyles, so these issues balance out. But then you compare Frollo to Clayton, and you seem to have a winner. Meanwhile, Esmeralda is more compelling than Jane (primarily because of "God Help the Outcasts"), and the great Tom Hulce lends Quasimodo a greater ability to elicit sympathy than whoever-voiced-Tarzan lends Tarzan.

^ I think the fellow who voted for Tarzan is Disney's Divinity.

Yes. I'll give a more detailed opinion later (I think I forgot to in the Bambi/Dumbo thread).

Hunchback, hands down.

Dr. Frankenollie pretty much took the words out of my mouth as to why Hunchback is the better film. I'd also like to add that the soundtrack to Hunchback (while not perfect) is a bit more tolerable to my ears than Phil Collin's pop soundtrack to Tarzan IMHO. Yeah, as you can tell I'm not a big Phil Collins fan.

Hunchback

What do you think I'd pick?


BTW I notice now the youtube encode does not work now.

This was actually a tough call for me. I think I hold both films to about the same standard in my collection. Both films work in spite of their flawed comic relief sidekicks (same with Mulan). But I think Hunchback has a slight edge on Tarzan.

Love both of them but prefer Tarzan. Poll is unbelievably lopsided. I know the more hardcore fans tend to favor Hunchback more but other metrics such as RT and IMDB tend to favor Tarzan and didn't expect the discrepancy to be so large.

Just to clarify, I don't take issue with the poll results, was just expressing my surprise.

Tarzan, hand down. But I'm not surprised by the results on this forum.

I have to be completely honest, neither film is one of my favorites, though I saw both in theaters while I was a child. The only thing I liked about either film for many years was their soundtracks (I asked for the Tarzan soundtrack as soon as I had saw the film; it wasn't until I was older that I did the same for Hunchback). I've come to appreciate both films more over the years, but I still can't say they're that special to me.

Story: The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I find the story in both films flawed, but the Frollo-Quasi relationship is more interesting than Tarzan's coming of age story, which are so common in animated films, for some reason.
Animation: Tie. I prefer the designs in Tarzan for being less jagged, but both films are animated equally well (apex of the Renaissance budgets?).
Characters: Frollo/Tony Jay are stronger than any character/voice actor from Tarzan, I'll give you, but no other character in Hunchback is very interesting, imo. Quasimodo should be interesting considering how Frollo has abused him by isolating him from the rest of the world and brainwashing him, but he doesn't play any different than any other character from the Renaissance with Daddy issues. And I would like to come up with a better word ( ), but bland is what best describes Esmeralda and Phoebus in my mind; Esmeralda is at the center of the story, and yet she is one of the most cliched, unexciting characters in the movie. The result of her character is more interesting than she is herself, in how Quasi and Frollo react to her (Madonna/whore complex, anyone?). Let's not go into the comic characters. Tarzan has Tarzan, Kala, Kerchak, and Jane, who, while not as good as Frollo, at least make a stronger all-around cast than the one found in Hunchback. Clayton is a very weak villain, but Kerchak and Sabor both fill the void so that the film doesn't fail, if the film even needs a villain at all (some people might not see Kerchak as a villain, but I personally thought he was a very cruel, antagonistic character--much moreso than similar characters in other films, like Triton, Powhatan, Fa Zhou). Tantor and Terk present the same problem as the Gargoyles and Djali from Hunchback, but I've never been annoyed by them nearly as much, personally. It might be that Tarzan is not nearly so bleak that the comedy feels off, even though it would be better if they were at least funnier than they are.
Music: Hmmm...The Hunchback of Notre Dame. While I love the Tarzan soundtrack ("Son of Man" is one of my favorite Disney songs, period.), overall it is weaker than Hunchback. I don't find myself listening to Hunchback nearly as much as other Alan Menken soundtracks, but it is one of his strongest works after Mermaid and B&tB, imo.

Objectively, they're nearly equal to me. But since my opinion doesn't rely on objectivity, I'll just say I hate The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which weighs heavily in Tarzan's favor.

I like both films, but I chose Hunchback.

I just personally enjoy the darker story more. Hunchback to me is primarily a drama/love story, while Tarzan is more of an action/comedy more in vain with Aladdin. Tarzan's fun, but Hunchback was really trying to elevate itself to something more.

Hunchback also resonates more with my personal life, stife, and problems I've experienced. Not to sound cliche, but I actually identified a lot with the outcast storyline and the love triangle aspect during that time period in my life.

As for the comedy elements, my instinct is to wish the gargoyles weren't there, even if they're not as annoying to me as some other Disney sidekicks. However, I can't actually say for sure how well the movie would work without the moments of levity. I do however like that there is no other direct human interaction with them so it can really be chalked up to his imagination.

Musically, it's also a very solid film for me. But, if I had to pick a moment, the opening of Out There with Quasimodo's sad counter melodies to Frollo is the most tragically moving musical moment in a Disney film for me since the Feed the Birds score reprise at the end of Mary Poppins. It makes me want to tear up almost every time I hear it. Also, if anyone on here has not switched over and listened to the french track for God Help the Outcasts, you really should. It's a pretty song in English, but it's a gorgeous performance in french.

Do I even have to say anything at this point?

HUNCHBACK!

I don't understand what anyone is saying about the cast of characters being unmemorable or bland outside of Frollo. I think what's happening here is, the villain is just SO well done, all the other characters stand in his shadow, and, to be honest, that's not NEW for Disney. I've heard people say the exact same thing about The Little Mermaid, for instance. A LOT of my female friends seem to HATE TLM with a passion. But they all admit that Ursula rocks, and that's she's 'the only good thing about the film.' And, personally, I feel that way about Scar in The Lion King, so, I can see WHY people might feel that way about Frollo and Hunchback, but I disagree. He is amazing and elevates the film from mere children's fare to adult entertainment, but I have always liked the rest of the cast, too. Quasimodo comes in for some flak in some circles for being 'too nice' and 'boring.' I honestly don't know what these people are talking about... We have a character here, who, much like Cinderella, has been abused and spurned his entire life. And, like Cinderella, he doesn't mope about all the time. But what's interesting about Quasimodo is that he DOES undergo an arc, and a change, by the film's end. Notice, (and I've talked about this before) the subtle acting in the animation of Quasi whenever Frollo is around him. He goes from confident, standing upright, speaking clearly, to looking down, afraid, ashamed, stuttering, clumsy. This is, actually, a VERY realistic depiction of how an abused child would act around their abuser. (Unfortunately, I have been around kids who are abused and that aspect is terribly, sadly dead-on.) Quasi is, at the film's start, afraid of even THINKING about disobeying Frollo. But by film's end, he's standing up to Frollo, unafraid. That's pretty big stuff, I think, for an abuse victim to overcome the influence of their tormentor. And it's done...subtly. I'm sorry, but, outside of the Beast, there just isn't as interesting a male Disney character as Quasimodo, in my opinion. Aladdin is handsome and...bland. Yay, he's nice and he's got a good heart. So what? Simba? Holy shit. Milquetoast. John Smith? I've seen glasses of MILK with more personality than John Smith. Hercules is cute and endearing, and I really like the outcast angle for him that makes him feel 'different' (same goes for Tarzan), but Quasimodo has that, too, plus the above, plus the niceness, the selflessness and the willingness to be okay with not getting the girl.

Esmeralda is another that I don't feel deserves to be labeled bland... She's fiery, feisty, stubborn, quick-tempered, but also compassionate and, again, selfless. She can hold her own while still retaining her femininity and, unlike Princess Jasmine, doesn't come off as a total bitch. Belle is bland and boring. Ariel is adventurous, but LOATHED by feminists, for some fucked up reason. Pocahontas and Mulan are just dullards. And Jane is nice, but totally forgettable. Esmeralda isn't my FAVORITE Disney heroine (that honor would have to go to Meg from Hercules. Now there's a CHARACTER! With a past! And motivation! And...gah! She's just so well done.) but, again, I think Esmeralda being a persecuted minority helps me respect her more, and endears her more to me.

Phoebus, I've always liked. Not so much for his looks. (Not really a fan of his design), But I always loved Kevin Kline's performance. Again, I don't think it's fair to call him bland. When you compare him to, as I said, John Smith, or any of the Walt princes, or, hell, even Prince Eric, at least Phoebus has a personality. He's the snarky, jokey frat-boy type who doesn't speak out against injustice until it's nearly too late. I always found that interesting... he is visibly offended by Frollo's bigotry but he doesn't...DO anything about it until Frollo tries to burn the miller's family alive. That's very nearly at the end of the film. It takes Phoebus a long while to finally get on the right side of things, even though we in the audience recognize him as essentially a good person from the moment he walks up and helps Esmeralda get away from the Guards. Is he the greatest character? No. But he's FAR from horrible.

Clopin is probably my second favorite character after Frollo. Something about him sets him apart from any other narrator we've ever had in a Disney film. Maybe it's the fact that, unlike most narrators, he actually plays a part in the story. Whatever the case, Clopin is a fun character, with a great design, TERRIFIC vocal performance by Paul Kandel and, what I like most about Clopin is his ambiguity. Is he a good guy? Is he a bad guy? He's willing to do BAD things. He's got that gleam in his eye like a kid who knows he's doing something he shouldn't be. He reminds me, more than anything else, of the M.C. from the film Cabaret. Omnipresent, creepy, sinister, fun, sleazy... I've always liked him. And I know he has a HUGE fanatic fanbase on Tumblr. (Not that that means anything in the context of this post.)

I'm not even going to waste much time talking about Frollo. We ALL love Frollo. He's the best thing about the film, he drives the action of the film in a way that, really, no other villain does, and he is the most terrifyingly realistic and human villain the studio ever did. Kathy Zielinski's animation is breath-taking. She brings the rich, melodic baritone pipes of Tony Jay to life in a way no other animator could have.

(I posted this next bit on Blu-ray.com's forum originally, but I figured I'd re-post it here)

I'm not crazy about the Gargoyles, but I don't hate them. They have never bothered me much, because, the occasional lame gag aside, they don't really DO anything worthy of spite. They encourage Quasimodo, they help defend the church from the Guards and they make the occasional lame joke. I honestly don't understand why these characters in particular are singled out as the 'worst comic relief ever' in the Disney canon while Timon & Pumbaa meanwhile seem to be LOVED, adored even, by the public at large, and they are crass, rude, obnoxious and actually stray the main character in their film down the wrong path in life and seduce him into a life of hedonism and irresponsibility in a toe-tapping, catchy musical number that the kids love!

The Gargoyles don't sap every quiet moment in the film up with their presence (unlike the Pocahontas sidekicks who, I swear, seem to pop up EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a quiet moment that lasts more than three seconds. Or even, hey, the frickin' Genie from Aladdin, who, the second he shows up on the scene practically STEALS the film from the main character and turns it into the Robin Williams variety hour.) There are a few instances that make me roll my eyes, don't get me wrong. And all of them are provided by Hugo. ("Pour the wine and cut the cheese!" "Oh, look, a mime!") But I WILL say, one of my favorite moments in the entire film is provided by the Gargoyles. (The exchange, "Sure, we'll leave you alone." "-After all, we're only made out of stone..." "-We just thought you were made of something stronger...")

I also always liked the implication that the church itself provided Quasimodo with companionship and 'protected' him (as Gargoyles are believed to do) from evil. (Or Frollo, in this case.) And, I just don't get what Disney was expected to do without the Gargoyles. Quasimodo NEEDS to have someone to bounce his thoughts off of...(That, and the Victor Hugo novel DOES say Quasimodo talked to the Gargoyles and held conversations with them and the statues of the Saints.) I bet if Disney had done birds or animals instead of Gargoyles, they would have been criticized for being redundant. I don't think they could win any way they went with this. If they didn't have ANY sidekicks for Quasimodo, we'd have our protagonist rambling to himself like a crazy person for half the film. So, no, I don't loathe the Gargoyles or begrudge Disney for their inclusion. I think, in the context of the film, they work.

The additional gags; Esmeralda v. Soldiers, Phoebus and his snarkers, Clopin, Frollo's gallows humor ("ETERNAL damnation!" "I'm sure you'll...whip my men into shape." "Trouble with the fireplace...") I've always liked. Aside from a few instances with the Goat, Djali, (who WAS in the Victor Hugo novel...and actually played a much larger role in the original book than the Disney film), I find all the non-Gargoyle humor to be quite innocent and, if you're going to criticize those types of gags, you've got to be equally critical of them in films like Snow White, Pinocchio, Bambi, Cinderella, Peter Pan (holy crap. Now THERE is a film where the comedy completely sucks any drama away from the proceedings!), Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, etc. etc. The vast majority of Disney films include humor along these lines. I don't think you can fairly single out Hunchback in this regard. And I think it terribly unfair to dog Hunchback for not succeeding at its comedy as well as it did with its more dramatic moments.

Anyway, long story short, I love Hunchback. I have since I first saw it. And age has only increased my respect for the film and what it was able to accomplish.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:I've heard people say the exact same thing about The Little Mermaid, for instance. A LOT of my female friends seem to HATE TLM with a passion. But they all admit that Ursula rocks, and that's she's 'the only good thing about the film.'

In my experience, it seemed all the preppy girls loved Ariel, while all the outcast/goth girls loved Ursula. I was a go-between in high school, so I loved Ariel and Ursula, but they hated each other.

Esmeralda isn't my FAVORITE Disney heroine (that honor would have to go to Meg from Hercules. Now there's a CHARACTER! With a past! And motivation! And...gah! She's just so well done.)

Yes, I think Megara is one of Disney's best non-evil female characters. Honestly, I love most characters from Hercules.

Clopin is probably my second favorite character after Frollo. Something about him sets him apart from any other narrator we've ever had in a Disney film. Maybe it's the fact that, unlike most narrators, he actually plays a part in the story. Whatever the case, Clopin is a fun character, with a great design, TERRIFIC vocal performance by Paul Kandel and, what I like most about Clopin is his ambiguity. Is he a good guy? Is he a bad guy? He's willing to do BAD things. He's got that gleam in his eye like a kid who knows he's doing something he shouldn't be. He reminds me, more than anything else, of the M.C. from the film Cabaret. Omnipresent, creepy, sinister, fun, sleazy... I've always liked him. And I know he has a HUGE fanatic fanbase on Tumblr. (Not that that means anything in the context of this post.)

Oh, yes, Clopin is my favorite character in the film, bypassing Frollo even. He's superior to the Peddler in Aladdin, for example. I wish his role wasn't so minimal, tbh. (And I know that part about tumblr, too. ) I love ambiguous characters like Clopin, and they're few and far between in Disney films.

If they didn't have ANY sidekicks for Quasimodo, we'd have our protagonist rambling to himself like a crazy person for half the film.

I personally don't think that would've been a bad idea in a film that attempts to depart heavily from many Disney conventions. That said, I do think the comic relief in Hunchback gets judged worse because the rest of the film is not typical Disney. It's very dark, only to have re-iterations of Timon & Pumbaa shoved uncomfortably into the background. It's as if the filmmakers wanted to have their cake and eat it, too.

I think people hate Hugo more than any of the others. If Hugo wasn't in there, I bet more people would like Laverne and Victor more. Hugo IS the worst character in the film, but I actually quite like Laverne and Victor. Laverne comes off as grandmotherly and sweet. I love the scene where Quasi makes up his mind about helping Phoebus find the Court of Miracles, and the Gargoyles just look at him and don't say anything and then Laverne hands him his cloak with an encouraging smile on her face. That's partially why I could never hate their characters entirely, even if I do agree they are the weakest element in the film. And for some reason, I always liked Victor, too. Maybe it's his design? Or his neurotic personality? I dunno. And I will never not find the, "Fly my pretties! Fly!" gag funny. Sure, it's a pop culture reference, but, come on. It's a pop culture reference to, arguably, the most timeless and beloved family film ever made. So it gets a pass from me.

I agree that Hugo is the one dragging the whole thing down. He's no entirely awful, just completely out of place. Victor and Laverne aren't nearly as annoying and their interaction with Quasimodo is genuine and serves the plot most of the time.

Loved both them both, but Hunchback wins out for me. It would have won out by a much greater margin if Disney had not felt the need to shoehorn in the three unfunny gargoyles. Tarzan had sidekicks too but they felt much more naturally integrated into the story. Sometimes I wish instead of messing with the colors and 'restoring' their old classics they would focus some of their time on fixing what's wrong with movies like Hunchback and Mulan where they would have been absolutely perfect without certain sidekicks. Of course that's never going to happen so oh well. The scene in Hunchback where Quasimodo escapes his chains while the bells vibrate in the backround is one of the most bad@$$ scenes I've ever seen in any movie, animated or not.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:He's the snarky, jokey frat-boy type who doesn't speak out against injustice until it's nearly too late. I always found that interesting... he is visibly offended by Frollo's bigotry but he doesn't...DO anything about it until Frollo tries to burn the miller's family alive. That's very nearly at the end of the film. It takes Phoebus a long while to finally get on the right side of things, even though we in the audience recognize him as essentially a good person from the moment he walks up and helps Esmeralda get away from the Guards. Is he the greatest character? No. But he's FAR from horrible.

Great points that I don't normally consider when I think about Phoebus. Your whole analysis - so to speak - of Hunchback was excellent. I really like Clopin too.