Jump to content

Talk:The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.29.29.23 (talk) at 12:47, 8 February 2016 (→Semi-protected edit request on 8th Feb 2016: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
  • Voice Acting: Tom Hulce for Quasimodo, Demi Moore for Esmeralda, and Tony Jay for Frollo
  • Feature: Hunckback of Notre Dame
  • 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)[reply]

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Hooks, Ed (2005). "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Beauty and the Beast. That´s it MachineGun112 (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2015

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

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8th Feb 2016

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

Erm how? Should be removed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hunchback_of_Notre_Dame_(1996_film)&oldid=703918089"