MovieChat Forums > The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Discussion > This movie is part of the 'Try-Hard Trio...

This movie is part of the 'Try-Hard Trio'

posted 11 years ago by filmfanbk
34 replies | jump to latest

What do I mean by "Try Hard Trio?" Well, let me explain. Back when The Little Mermaid came out, Disney was out of the dark ages. Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King continued the success with Disney Animation. All 4 Disney films have become Disney classics.

However, Pocahontas came out things began to change. Pocahontas did not receive the same glowing reviews like the previous 4 films. Though it won Oscars and made money. It was a "Flop pretending to be a hit." Outside the "Colors of the WInd" section of the movie, there is literally nothing interesting or memorable about the movie. The only other good moment in the movie is "Just Around the River bend" because you can tell it is reminiscent of the classic Disney heroine musical moment. The animation is very good. But outside of that, the film is not memorable, the romance is predictable, the characters are not interesting, it is Dances with Wolves/Ferngully/Avatar/Brother Bear preachy story (which has been overdone), and tries too hard to be the next "Disney Classic." Out of all the DIsney Princesses, she is the least popular. Disney gives her an occasional experience in parks and merchandising but that's it. Girls go to Disney to see Belle, Rapunzel, Cinderella more than Pocahontas.

Next is The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I love the story of Hunchback, but it is certainly not an adaptable story for children. Same with Les Miserables. Now, you may say "Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia and others have scary moments for kids." Yes, but there is one thing that is different from those films compared to The Hunchback of Notre Dame. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is an adult novel dealing with the moral decay and corruption that was going on in France at that time (Same with Les Miserables). Themes of lust, religious hypocrisy, and other stuff are not in other Disney films. Now, is it bad that Hunchback has those themes? No, that is what makes the book great. But for a Disney audience? If Disney made Les Miserables, Fantine would have to be a beggar woman instead of a prostitute. Doesn't work because it takes away the emotional impact of Fantine becoming a prostitute. Well with Disney's Hunchback, they "cleaned up" the story while trying to keep some adult stuff to make it work. Sorry but it doesn't. That makes the film totally and dramatically uneven. The moment with the Gargoyles are the biggest proof of that point. So that is the main problem with Hunchback. Parents and kids did not connect with the film. The reason it has a "cult" following is because the teenage and young adult demographic connect with the themes of this story and they like the daring edgy stuff in this film. While it is daring for Disney to touch on themes of lust, it comes across as "Oh look at us we can create an adult Disney movie and yet we have cute characters like the gargoyles." Eh NO. So I look at Hunchback as a NonDisney film. If the Gargoyles and Disney cliches were not present and this movie was made by Don Bluth or some other animation studio, then this movie would be a masterpiece for sure. But we are stuck with what we have. The film made less the previous Disney films which showed the decline with Disney.

Now, Hercules. Pocahontas was too preachy, The Hunchback of Notre Dame was too dark, now we have an Aladdin like film YAYYYYehhhh. This film REALLY tries too hard. The songs are not memorable at all, Gospel with Greek Mythology? Look the gospel music fit with The Princess and the Frog, but not this film. Hercules's characters and songs fall really flat. Aladdin was memorable because he was interesting a relatable. Hercules is not interesting at all. He lacks the depth of Aladdin and the chemistry between him and Meg is certainly not as strong as Aladdin and Jasmine. it feels forced. That is the problem with Hercules, everything feels forced and not original. The animation is not great. Yea, Aladdin has some cartoony moments but they worked. This one is really dumbed down. Now Hades is a good villain because of James Wood's voice work. Frollo same deal. But overall, nothing stands out with this film. They tried to promote Hercules so much with a TV series, kingdom Hearts and some park stuff but it was very short lived and the movie made even less that its predecessors.

The only Disney films after the Lion King and before the slump of the early 2000s (excluding Lilo & Stitch) that were able to be almost just as good as the early 90s classics are Mulan, Tarzan and even Fantasia 2000. Mulan and Tarzan made more money and connected with audiences. The thing I get disappointed is that they don't promote Mulan and Tarzan as much (though WAY more than Pocahontas, Hunchback and Hercules). 1998-early 2000 was small period of Disney magic returning. But anyway the reason I call Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules the "Try Hard Trio" is that Disney tried too hard to make these films the huge successes of the "fabulous four." Instead they lost their grip. These movies may have their followings but they do not a 'classic' status for sure. No diamond editions for these films. I'm feel that Mulan and Tarzan should receive diamond editions but I'll have to wait on that I guess.

[–] Miss_Kitty89 11 years ago

Sorry but Hercules is fantastic and my brother and I loved it as a kid. My friend and I just watched it recently and agree that it was a still great, especially the songs.

Hunchback, which we also watched, we found to be way too adult. We were very surprised by all the sexual and religious messages, which led us to understand why we both only watched it a few times as children.

There is no one on IMDB I care enough for to use spell check- suck it grammar Nazis

[–] xfastfurious15 11 years ago

i too hate the music of Hercules, OP. gospel in ancient greece? come on.

"If we can only catch him, Death is dead!" -Cantebury Tales

[–] moooovieman 11 years ago

I disagree about them being "try hard". If they wanted to re-create the success they'd had with Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, they'd have made more movies with princesses and princes. Instead, they created movies that had messages and different audiences in mind.

If you think Pocahontas was boring or unmemorable, that's on you. However, that's just your opinion, and it can't be used as an argument about it being try hard. How is the "respect the Earth" story line predictable and overdone but themes in Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Aladdin about "love conquers all" and "it's not about what's on the outside" aren't? Half of the movies you cited as having the same storyline came after Pocahontas... the movie can't be blamed for movies that came after it.

I consider all three of those part of the "Disney Renaissance", and although they might not be as popular as the princess movies (understandably when you consider their demographic), they are still very well made, beautiful movies.

[–] filmfanbk 11 years ago

If you think Pocahontas was boring or unmemorable, that's on you. However, that's just your opinion, and it can't be used as an argument about it being try hard. How is the "respect the Earth" story line predictable and overdone but themes in Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Aladdin about "love conquers all" and "it's not about what's on the outside" aren't? Half of the movies you cited as having the same storyline came after Pocahontas... the movie can't be blamed for movies that came after it.

Because there is a certain timeless quality to films that have a message of 'love conquers all.' Those messages have been universally embraced and loved which is why Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid were so successful. Plus, Disney told them in a new fresh way that had not been done before. Snow White and Cinderella may have a 'love conquers all' message, but it simplified due to the confines of the period these movies were made. Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid came at a time where there was more story advancements.

Pocahontas's 'respect the Earth' message is not as universal. Not to say people don't care for our planet, but not in the way that we name a tree gaia to be spiritually in tune with nature. It sort of becomes preachy and in some respects hypocritical. Because the media stays away from stories with a 'religious' message because they feel it might 'offend' certain groups. But doesn't environmental ideas or believing in mother nature count as a religious value (not in terms of Christianity, but just other kinds of religions)? Just like when people say 'not everyone believes in Christianity,' well not everyone believes in Native American practices either. It feels forced. While Beauty and the Beast's moral does not feel forced.

[–] jname96 11 years ago

^ I agree! Disney totally should get CREDIT, for trying NEW things w/ these movies :)

At least they were pushing themselves, artistically.

"Pocahontas" (which is actually one of my favorites), might have been ruined 'cause it became a 'movie-by-committee', but they pushed the boundaries of theme, concept--and DESIGN. I think that movie is STUNNING, in its animation. So unique! Definitely underrated for its animation.

[–] IrishEyes2787 11 years ago

I have to disagree. I'm not a huge fan of Pocahontas because of the substantial historical (and geographical) errors. Hercules is fun, though a bit forgettable (excepting the character of Meg, who I think is a great, albeit underrated, Disney lady).
I saw Hunchback when I was nine and was blown completely away by it. I had goosebumps the entire movie, I wore out my cassette tape soundtrack and I must have returned to the theater to see it three additional times. To this day it is in my top five Disney animated films. The art and the music are just breathtaking and while the story is cleaned up enough to make it family friendly it retains enough of the core thematic elements to keep its poignancy. In fact, I think that it resonates so deeply precisely BECAUSE it has some darkness to it. People underestimate children too much, always thinking that they won't undertsand something or won't connect to it unless it's presented in a happy, fluffy way. Children are a lot smarter and lot more perceptive than they're given credit for.

~*I'd tell your fortune but the words don't rhyme*~

[–] jname96 11 years ago

I have to disagree w/ you. If you dislike Pocahontas for its historical and geographic errors, then I hate to break it to you: as you said, Hunchback took INFINITE liberties on the book, bearing almost no resemblance to it, plot-wise.

Also, have you been to Paris? Notre Dame is actually shorter than most buildings around it, lol.... not towering like in this movie.

Historical inaccuracy is a lazy excuse to hate a movie. Disney's Pocahontas was based on legend. Look at Fox's "Anastasia", which was just as historically inaccurate; people forgave it, cuz they simply liked it.

Hate Pocahontas if you want, but don't blame it on the "inaccuracies".

[–] IrishEyes2787 11 years ago

Wow that was unecessarily rude. I didn't say I hated it it, I said I wasn't a fan and there's a difference. And I am fully aware of the liberties Disney and Fox and numerous other studios have taken with history on any number of occasions. Generally they fall on a scale between forgiveable and so eggregious I can't watch without becoming enraged and the reaction is based as much on the surrounding circumstances as on the liberty itself. For Hunchback OF COURSE I understand why they cut out of the rape and murder and torture, since it is an animated movie that children were going to see. And while I think children are capable of handling darkness, I don't ever think it's necessary to introduce them to something that dark before it's necessary. Same goes for Anastasia. The gruesome murder and defiling of the Romanov's is not something I'd want to see on film even as an adult.
Pocahontas is a special case for me. I think the actual story is is more interesting than the film. A young girl who has the presence of mind to step between her people and the invaders in her country and then proceeded to play a big part in the brokerage of peaceful relations between them? That's much cooler than a star-crossed love story to me. Particulalrly since Pocahontas didn't even really like John Smith, in real life her actions weren't motivated by her personal feelings so much as an understanding of inevitability and the necessity for peaceful coexistence. That's impressive in someone who hasn't achieved puberty yet.
As for the geography, I have spent my entire life going in and out of that region of Virginia and I can't help but find the soaring cliffs and waterfalls that the movie depicts to be laughable. Tidewater Virginia is a flat, marshy, brackish, wooded place. It takes me personally out of the film seeing it otherwise. I know that this isn't the case for everyone and I don't expect it to be but that's one thing in the movie that doesn't work for ME at all. Paris is still rendered as Paris in Hunchback (and in the 1400's the building surrounding the cathedral would have been substantially lower than a towering Gothic structure, so that is not historically inaccurate).

~*I'd tell your fortune but the words don't rhyme*~

[–] jname96 11 years ago

I didn't mean to be rude, I'm just so sick of the knee-jerk sanctimonious cliche response to "Pocahontas": "Oh I hate it cuz it's historically inaccurate." This response reeks of lack of original thought, and biased prejudice. It's the go-to answer for people who want to feel superior. How many movies have we watched (and enjoyed) that butchered the true story to some extent? Probably many. Movies are entertainment first, factual.... God knows.

2005's "The New World" is also about Pocahontas, and relied heavily on the (fictional) romance between Smith and Pocahontas. It actually got great reviews from some high-profile critics, appearing on many "Top 10" lists for the year, even for the end-of-DECADE lists too.

My point is: historical accuracy isn't the point of many movies. It's simply story that matters.

You want history, watch a documentary or read a book. By the way, you completely contradicted yourself, creating different rules for different movies. Have your cake, and eat it too huh? I understand you grew up in Virginia, etc... but still: you literally have different rules for each movie you mentioned. I'm sure many people found the original stories of "Hunchback" and "Anastasia" far, far more interesting than their cinematic counterparts too.

[–] IrishEyes2787 11 years ago

Stop putting words in my mouth. Whether you mean to be rude and condescending or not you are coming across that way. I have not contradicted myself and they are not rules. They are personal opinions founded by the way I personally percieve the elements of a film to add up to a whole. Since they are opinions I understand implicitly that not everyone shares them. The original stories of Hunchback and Anastasia are interesting but neither are family friendly in their original form (nor would Anastasia's story be of particular interest to children since her life was not particularly regal and she spent the last few years in confinement not doing much of anything). Pocahontas is a case where the real story is not only [mostly] appropriate for children but empowering to children directly since Pocahontas herself was still a child even by her own people's standards when she met John Smith. The New World is very good, but it was shot with a totally different audience in mind and, yes, I still disapproved of the romance element between Pocahontas and John Smith because I dislike the idea that to do what she did she must have been motivated by a crush. I think it does a disservice to the strength of character possessed by the real woman.
My opinion of a film is, as I said, dependent on any number of circumstances, I don't adhere to a rigid set of "rules" that define a good or bad film. That's stupid and entirely over-simplifies the experience of film watching.

~*I'd tell your fortune but the words don't rhyme*~

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] furienna 11 years ago

My least favorite of those three has to be "Pocahontas". I don't really like how Pocahontas and John Smith are separated. I know it's historically correct, and in a way, I can admire that Disney had the guts to not have a conventional happy ending. But the reason why Disney gave us for their separation makes no sense, and to be fair, the rest of the movie is rather bland. I like the song "Colors of the wind" though...

Compared to "Pocahontas", "The hunchback of Notre-Dame" and "Hercules" are pretty much masterpieces, in their own ways. "Hunchback" has to be Disney's darkest movie ever, even after they had made it a little bit more family-friendly. And I just love "Hercules". Yes, Disney took plenty of liberties with the story, yet again to make the story more family-friendly. But did anyone really expect them to not do that?

Intelligence and purity.

[–] SelenaQP 11 years ago

I have to disagree about mulan and tarzan. I don't find them NEARLY as great as the early 90s disney films. They don't feel all that memorable or classic to me. Pocahontas, at least had the memorable songs and the hunchback storyline and characters were more memorable than anyone on mulan and tarzan.

Don't be calling me no bitch! If I'm a bitch, then your mama is a bitch, BITCH!

[–] jname96 11 years ago

Pocahontas, at least had the memorable songs and the hunchback storyline and characters were more memorable than anyone on mulan and tarzan.

-Agreed!

[–] tinopecchia-442-871887 11 years ago

I have no problem with them trying hard at least they're trying too make films of quality. That's much better than films like The Lorax which is basically a glorified skittles commercial.

[–] rocker_from_the_moon 11 years ago

I already fell in love with The Hunchback when i was a kid (6 y/o) and i didn't remember me being scared by it. Heck, i was dressed as Phoebus on halloween that year!

[–] LadyMiraculous 10 years ago

This was one of my favorite movies when I was 4 years old. Was I scared by it? A little, but I still loved it as a kid, and I love it today.

I WAS FROZEN TODAY!!!
[Formerly CosmosX9]