I mean,what a barrow load of laughs the origanol novel was.Dogs dying,Foxes dying,dogs being shot...what sort of sick person would write such stuff..especially for kids.Good for Disney I say.
shareI don't think the novel was ever intended as a kids story.
Many older literature have dark and depressing endings.
From what I've heard, the book has such a demented atmosphere.
"Rock and roll ain't noise pollution"-AC/DC
It still surprises me that Disney even tried their hand at Fox and the Hound, and even more so Hunchback of Notre Dame given the source material for each of those stories. Disney can do dark, but Disney does not do bleak.
shareWell, they had to let Quasimodo and Esmeralda survive and add some comic relief characters to get away with "Hunchback".
It is clear too that Disney's "The Fox & The Hound" despite being a rather bleak tale nevertheless is more light-hearted than the novel.
I imagine there are some fans of the Hunchback novel that would have rather that Disney never adapted it at all, and I sympathize with them. Especially if they were adults during the 90s, and when they heard that Disney was going to make a movie they were immediately cynical of the idea. I know that Disney’s adaptation has also been adapted into a stage musical, I haven’t seen it yet, but I have listened to some of the music. It sounds like it does some of what Disney should’ve done in the first place, which is if they had to have the live gargoyles, they needed to be all in Quasimodo’s head. I’ve also heard that Esmeralda does die, making it much more of a bittersweet ending.
For Fox and the Hound, I definitely would’ve had Chief die. I also would’ve gotten rid of Dinky and Boomer (as much as I loved listening to Tigger’s voice as a kid in this movie). The only thing they do that is plot-relevant is help Big Mama find someone to take in Tod. Otherwise, they are dead weight and very annoying at that. And of course, the songs. The only decent “song” is Goodbye May Seem Forever in my opinion, but if Disney would’ve kept the Sherman brothers, or at least hired a songwriting team that was a better fit for the story and setting, I don’t think the movie would have suffered as much. And even in the GMSF scene, as sad as it is, I think sad music that is more subtle and instrumental would’ve worked better, or even total silence might’ve made the scene stronger.
But we must remember that there has to be some "kid appeal" in Disney movies.
It is not like the gargoyles nor Dinky and Boomer are anywhere near being my favorite Disney sidekicks.
That said, they needed to be there to balance out the sombreness of these movies.
Also, I don't see how killing Esmeralda or Chief off would have made the stories better...
What is your definition of “kid appeal”? Because to me, that kind of “kid appeal” is insulting to their intelligence. It also gives the writers a free pass to write crap just because “it’s for kids”, and I can never support that ever.
There was plenty of “kid appeal” with Tod and Copper playing as puppies alone, and by cutting Dinky and Boomer we could’ve focused a little bit more on their character development. If Disney wanted to make a short film about two birds chasing a caterpillar, I wouldn’t be against it. But it just doesn’t belong in a movie like Fox and the Hound, it just takes away from the tone and atmosphere.
How do you not see how killing off Chief would’ve made the movie stronger? It’s a no-brainer. Nothing could survive falling and hitting/landing on multiple rocks after being hit by a train. And by keeping Chief alive, Copper and Amos have less reason to go after Tod.
Firstly, it is not about me personally having a definition of "kid appeal".
But we can see that Disney puts comic relief into even their darker movies to make them less depressive.
And even as an adult who don't find Dinky and Boomer that funny, I appreciate how they let the movie "breathe".
And I'm glad that the whole movie isn't as sad and sombre as large parts of it still are...
And honestly, I actually read a comment on Youtube about a dog in real life surviving an accident like Chief did.
So I guess it's not as far-fetched as people think that he didn't die.
And even if it had been, it is not like a cartoon has to be 100 % realistic all the time anyway.
Not to mention that if Chief had died, it would have been less likely that Tod would have been allowed to live...
If that dog really survived, it’s an exception rather than the rule. It just makes no logical or narrative sense, and provides a lot less of an emotional impact. So I wouldn’t use it to justify allowing Chief to live in this movie for the sake of the plot. Besides, it’s really hard to believe that Amos is taking revenge over what happened to Chief when he’s telling him to go back in the room or he’ll “break his other leg.” Like, it’s only bad when Tod does it (or, more like it’s only bad when Tod happens to be in the same place when some other guy driving the train does it).
I asked what your definition is because that term is thrown around so many times to justify insulting kids’ intelligence. To me, you don’t need to put in annoying, unfunny sidekicks to make it appealing to children. In fact, a lot of family movies don’t have them and they have a more lighthearted tone and they’re actually funny.
Thanks for the input, now I will avoid the novel.
share