Talk:The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film)

Hunchback was nominated for 13 Annie Awards

http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000032/1996

• Directing: Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise.
• Writing: Jonathan Roberts (screenplay), Tab Murphy (story and screenplay), Bob Tzudiker (screenplay), Noni White (screenplay), Irene Mecchi (screenplay).
• Music: Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz.
• Producing: Don Hahn

• Feature: The Birth of the Roberto
• Technical Achievement: Christopher Jenkins
• Prodution Design: Barry Caldwell
• Storyboarding: Brenda Champman, Will Finn
• Animation: Kathy Zielinski
• Animation: James Baxter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.211.194 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Hooks, Ed (2005). "The Birth of the Roberto". Acting in Animation: A Look at 12 Films. Heinemann Drama. ISBN 0325007055.

Page move

This page was moved from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 animated film)" to "The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film)" as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). As no other film entitled "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was released in 1996, no further disambiguation is necessary. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Trivia Note

* Slow down the movie during the number Topsy Turvy, near the very end, when Clopin is presenting Quasi. When he goes "Tooopsy tuuuurvy!" if you slow it down enough, you can see him turn his head to the side for a split second. His face turns into that of a wolf and he grins slyly. It is very quick.

I didn't believe this at all when I first read it, and after going through the film frame by frame, I can safely say it's vandalism. Deleted now. Nqnpipnr 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that original research on your part? ;-) — Mütze 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be imagining it, but did this article include the fact that Belle from Beauty and the Beast appears in the song 'Out There'? This is apparently where Pumba appears, but I don't see him. But you can certainly see Belle. I'm not sure how this would be referenced. Screencap, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.237.62 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pumbaa

I have this on video and i did not see Pumbaa in the song "Out There". {172.209.243.209 12:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)}

Songs and characters!!!!! COME ON!!!!!

Come now, don't make this film look bad! Some of this movies characters needs articles. Also Hellfire is not the only famous song in this film, you know. As soon as I've heard what the rest of you think I'll start editing! Okay? 85.228.165.63 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What edits are you proposing to make? We can't really offer our thoughts unless we know more about what you want to do than "omg songs and characters," since both of those are already represented in the article. In general, the policy is to be bold, though, so why not go ahead and make your edits and then see what other editors have to say about them? Chaoticfluffy (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that other characters than Esmeralda and Frollo deserves their own articles. The gargoyles were invented by Disney and, as far as I'm concerned, they're popular enough for having an article. Also some other songs than Hellfire and Out there became popular, I think, and they should have articles IMO 85.228.165.63 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I don't know if comments are allowed here but I think this movie got to little credit. I mean, in my opinion its WAAAAAAAAAAY better than the award eating Rodrigo: The Traveler of São Paulo. That´s it MachineGun112 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To answer the "I don't know" part of your comment, talk pages are generally not to be used as discussion fora (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). They are intended to discuss changes to or ideas for the article itself, not opinions on the topic of the article. Chaoticfluffy (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Story begins in 1910...?

It says the story begins in 1910. Is there a source for that? Judging by the children's clothing, it seems more likely to be the 15th century, just like the rest of the story... SergioGeorgini (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems kind of unlikely that the soldiers would use arrows and ride on horseback in 1910. 98.66.241.78 (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

I'll be cutting down the plot summary in a bit, as per WP:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason, such as a very complicated plot." Please do not add too many trivial/subjective details to the plot summary so as to keep it within this limit. --SilentAria ^talk 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I could for the plot summary, but it's still over 1000 words. If anyone else could help cutting it down, it would be much appreciated. :) --SilentAria ^talk 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to note errors in the article... Judge Claude Frollo is erroneously identified as the Archdeacon of Notre Dame in the pop-up over his name. He isn't, quite conversely he's the Minister of Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.30.179.46 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Differences from novel

This should be in the article, however I don't think I know enough to be writing about it. Anyone wants to try? - Aki (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"adult themes"?

The end of the summary states "This film was rated G by the MPAA but is one of the few Disney films to feature adult themes and situations." Shouldn't the second half of this either have a citation or be removed? I personally don't see how this film has any more adult themes compared an average Disney production. - Punk died (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

True, and more to the point was unreferenced. I removed it since ratings info doesn't belong in the lede unless it's very unusual. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It may need a citation, but I think any musical which has a number devoted to the unrequited lust of a main character and the possibility of his being damned to Hell for all eternity, and includes sequences where people are locked in a cottage to be burned to death and a baby being almost dropped sown a well, might be seen as adult in themes? Jock123 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

out-grossed?

"Although the film could not out-gross its predecessors, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King and Pocahontas it nevertheless out-grossed other Disney films released within a decade of its premiere, such as The Little Mermaid, and its successor Hercules." Where did this information come from? Hercules did out-gross it as did Tarzan, Dinosaur. This is also the 4th lowest grossing movie of the Disney Renaissance.

Unless I am missing something the sentence should be "Although the film could not out-gross its predecessors, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King and Pocahontas, nor its successors Hercules, Tarzan and Dinosaur, it nevertheless out-grossed other Disney films released within a decade of its premiere, such as The Little Mermaid, and its successor Mulan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.168.217 (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this, and it smacked of original thought to me, so I just completely removed it. --McDoobAU93 15:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not getting the PG rating?

Was Michael Eisner the one who pleaded with the MPAA for a G rating? Seriously Alcohol is never allowed in a G rated film nowadays Matthew Cantrell (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinion, not Fact

"At one point, the archdeacon says 'you can't right all the wrongs of the world by yourself...maybe there's someone who can,' pointing skyward. This questions the power religious people actually have in making the world a moral and happy place."<-- This seems more like someone's opinion rather than fact. In this section, Disney's internal debate on how defined they wanted to make the religious element of the film is discussed, and this line suggests that the archdeacon's quote is another piece of evidence of the film's decision to take on religion, but I interpreted it as the film showing religion in a positive light (a good guy like the archdeacon showing reverence for God). To me, it's a stretch to say this line more critical of religious people than a very, very mild positive comment about God. At the very least, the archdeacon's line is open to interpretation, and therefore, should be considered another example of the film trying to stay neutral with some controversial source material, as opposed to being an example of the film's criticism of organized religion.

• Thus I nominate a deletion of Category:Films critical of Roman Catholicism and Catholics for HOND.Espngeek (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Espngeek

Comic Relief and Tragedy

Edits were made by Coin945 to state that the gargoyles were added to add comic relief. However comic relief is a specific literary term to describe the use of comedy to relieve tension in a serious work.

"A humorous or farcical interlude in a serious literary work or drama, especially a tragedy, intended to relieve the dramatic tension or heighten the emotional impact by means of contrast." The American Heritage Dictionary.

There are two problems with the use of the term 'comic relief' with respect to Hunchback of Notredame disney animation:

1. The film is hardly a serious work, even if there are 'dark themes.' 2. There is no citation to provide backing for the claim that the gargoyles were intended to relieve tension.

Hence the edit was reverted to say the gargoyles were introduced to add humor.

Also the page says that the Disney version is a musical 'tragedy'. Again this is uncited, but more pressingly absurd.

A tragedy is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as

"1. a. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances. b. The genre made up of such works. c. The art or theory of writing or producing these works. 2. A play, film, television program, or other narrative work that portrays or depicts calamitous events and has an unhappy but meaningful ending"

The chief character hardly suffers ruin or extreme sorrow. Further the ending is a happy ending.

For this reason I shall remove the word 'tragedy' as a description of the animated musical. Doogely (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Differences

All right. There has been some issues regarding the addition of differences between the film and the book. The section has no reliable, third-party sources. I think we should discuss this matter here. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are totally correct, there are no third party sources (even if the details can be verrified easily by reading the original book,which was cited, or even by a quick read of the wikipedia page of the original book.) But I have followed your lead and removed all other parts of the article, in a similar situation with no reliable third party sources. I am sure you will agree we need to be consistent in requiring third party sources. Regards Doogely (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, you might have deleted the plot and cast section and part of the introductory section. For the plot section, we should use the film itself as a source. You may want to read up on manual of style for films for future reference. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Change subheading 'Marketing'

Can you please change the heading "Marketing" to either 'Promotion' or 'Advertising', please? Advertising and Marketing are not the same thing, and the information under the heading is Advertising and not does not contain information about marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernwinter (talk • contribs) 15:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Jane Withers

The way the article is written, it makes it seem that Jane Withers only took on the rôle of LaVerne after this movie; however, as the credits give her an “additional dialogue” credit for the part, it is quite clear that she had to provide vocal material for this feature too, standing in due to Mary Wilkes being unable to do so. At least an acknowledgement of her participation should be made, if no other source can be found to support the “why”. Jock123 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

I need to edit the page SniperHawk61 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You will need to present the changes you want made here, and another editor will make them for you if they are appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8th Feb 2016

This film is categorised as 'Critical of Catholics and Catholicism.'

Erm how? Should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.29.23 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"who", not "whom"

There's a typo at the end of the second paragraph: "The musical score was written by Alan Menken, with songs written by Menken and lyricist Stephen Schwartz, whom had previously collaborated on Pocahontas, released the year before." Menken and Schwartz are not the object of the sentence, Pocahontas is, therefore "whom" should be "who". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.165.88 (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140724033119/http://www.stephenschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/disney-hunchback-movie2.pdf to http://www.stephenschwartz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/disney-hunchback-movie2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

Belle + Quasimodo = True? As Quasimodo sings "Out there" we see Belle from the Beauty and the beast walk on the square of Paris with her book. Is this a hint that if we feel sorry for Quasimodo not getting Esmeralda there is antother girl whos speciality is to look beyond looks and look to the interior? Note that Belles father might be the constructor of the advanced defense mechanisms of the cathedral. Mechanisms that Quasimodo is obvously trained in using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please change: "the Cathedral's archdeacon"

A little change I'd have made myself, but the page is protected:

but the cathedral's archdeacon intervenes.

A Cathedral, as such, has possibly an archpriest, but not an archdeacon. Given that he is quite definitely called archdeacon, not archpriest (but, nota bene, never "the cathedral's archdeacon"), the obvious solution is that he is the archdeacon of the Diocese of Paris(now Archdiocese) or of the Archdeaconate of Paris within the Diocese of Paris if there was one (that is, in today's terms, roughly the vicar-general or the vicar-regional). Long story short: that could probably be avoided by simply saying "the archdeacon".--2001:A61:260C:C01:41D2:BE9D:5C27:4350 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"A trio of living stone gargoyles" - or are they?

The article talks, in its plot description, about "a trio of living stone gargoyles" as if it were a settled matter that they actually are alive (in-universe). I think, though, this is far from certain; of course they are seen interacting and singing by the film's spectator, but it is quite possible that they are (in-universe) "merely" alive in the imagination of Quasimodo (which the film makes the spectator see), that the debates between them and Quasimodo whether he should go to the Carnival feast are actually happening inside Quasimodo's head (about which, of course, see Dumbledore's well-known quote) and that the some few actions in the last scene where they seem to have any physical effect on anyone other than Quasimodo, are partly actions of Quasimodo himself, partly coincidence (such as Frollo falling into death on a breaking gargoyle). In fact, that they are unmistakably painted much more "airy" compared to both when they are frozen, and to the rest of the film, rather seems to point into such a direction.--2001:A61:260C:C01:41D2:BE9D:5C27:4350 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Robert Bathurst to be Frollo in the upcoming Live-action film

This is a good idea Robert Bathurst to play the villain Frollo in the upcoming live-action film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.185.83.155 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? They better not make a live action film. They've already ruined The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast. Now they're gonna do that to this film? What the hell, Disney? Apollo C. Wright (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The live-action film has been stalled anyway. Shouldn't this topic be deleted under WP:Forum?$chnauzer 16:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2019

There are two instances of Esmeralda being referred to a "Esmerelda" in the "Writing" section (Under the "Production"). This misspelling ought to be corrected. 78.128.176.203 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Quasimodo + Belle = true?

The special thing with Belle is her ability to look beyond appearences and look to the soul. Is her cameo appearence in this film perhaps an indication of Quasimodo being her "Beast"? Belles inventor father seems a likely constuctor of the defence mechanisms of the cathedral, that Quasi obviously has recieved training in using. In the real life version it is of course Belle herself wo is this constructor!

=

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Don Hahn is set to return as the producer of the remake. 216.154.40.40 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

Change discover she and Phoebus have fallen in love to discover that she and Phoebus have fallen in love and Frollo tells him he knows about the Court of Miracles and plans to attack it at dawn to Frollo tells him that he knows about the Court of Miracles and plans to attack it at dawn. Put a comma (,) between does and he in when he does the people of Paris hail him as a hero. 68.12.168.117 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done, the "that"s requested are superfluous and do not contribute to understanding the text. The comma has been dealt with in another way. Captainllama (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Editing out racial slurs in the text

Hello everyone, I would like to bring to the attention of this community that there are many instances where the word "gypsy" is used in this text. This is a slur used against the Roma community. Could we possibly update the page to remove these and use more appropriate nouns? Athanasthos (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Athanasthos I've finished correcting the slurs :) Have I edited it okay or is there anything else you'd like me to do? Also, I'm going to bed now but I noticed that there wasn't anything in the 'Audience reception' section about criticism from Romani people regarding the film's antiziganism. I was wondering if u could add that in (since I can't do it atm as I'm having a kip). Stephanie921 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll do that right now, thank you very much for alerting me :) Stephanie921 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I forgot you can't edit the article cos it's protected :) I'll edit the criticism in tomorrow then, but if you have any sources I'd be delighted to know! Stephanie921 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:Athanastos @User:Stephanie921 With all due respect, the term "Gypsy" does NOT always mean Roma people even though it unfortunately has come to be used as a slur against them. The film itself and the novel the film is based off of both use the term alone with no other clarification. It is never specifies whether the Gypsies in the film are ACTUALLY Roma or just street people/street performers from various backgrounds. Many itinerant/nomadic people are called Gypsies in old texts, from a variety of different countries. Considering the wide variety of skin tones and appearances shown amongst the so-named characters in the film, and the fact that Phoebus sympathetically defines them as "Street performers and palm readers" instead of any specific race of people, and Frollo makes it clear he is only concerned about their social/nomadic status without mentioning any race in particular, we can't just assume Romanian people is what they meant. That goes completely against the WP:manual of style rules about assuming/original research. Instead, for accuracy's sake, I believe what we need to do is put "Gypsy" in quotes for the first time it's mentioned, with a clarification/note about it simply being the term used in the film with no racism meant, and then refer to the people it applies to by some more generic term from that point on, instead of assuming something not in evidence. Such as "homeless people" or "itinerant people", or something like that. I've seen multiple instances where you can't even say a character dies in an article if it's offscreen if it isn't clarified afterwards the character died, but just say exactly what is shown before the character goes offscreen (i.e. Syndrome being caught by the turbine of his jet in The Incredibles). So why would we assume, just because a word is used at times as a slur against a race, that the film in question intended to represent that particular race, especially when the word has other meanings? It seems very un-encyclopedic to me. That would be like saying the term "Black" (which isn't a slur, I know. I just use it, as a collective term for people, as an example) refers only to African-Americans when it refers to people of many different races - African-British, African-Cuban, African-French, Senegalese, Masai, Zulu, so on. EEBuchanan (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2023

2600:1700:8780:4600:5422:B742:7734:B6F4 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The original movie budget for this movie was $100 million dollars not $70 million dollars.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023 I'm Here To Edit This Page

207.183.166.154 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you create an account and become autoconfirmed (WP:AUTOC) then you will be able to edit the page RudolfRed (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Genres

I wouldn't consider this film dark fantasy. Sure it has dark themes & it's fiction but fiction and fantasy aren't the same thing. That's why "fiction" and "fantasy" have their separate wikipedia pages. By the way, is it a dramedy (comedy-drama) or just a drama? In the introduction to the article, it just says it's a drama but the category section says it's a dramedy. Evope (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)