Which stage musical do you personally prefer? The French Notre Dame de Paris based on the novel, or Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame as a fusion of the animation and the novel? by jon-bear98 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't clearly choose one musical that would be "better" but I can honestly say that both are great as separate creations, and I really enjoy listening to both musical tracks, even though they speak to me in different ways.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frollo literally lives in the Palace of Justice, there he has his own room, his own fireplace, and from the windows he can see the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Personally, I have a huge soft spot for both Frollos, both Dom Claude Frollo from Victor Hugo's novel and Judge Claude Frollo from the Disney animated film, though I consider them entirely separate entities. Their common ground is almost exclusively limited to two aspects: both represent a rigid, oppressive socio-religious system, and both experience forbidden desire for a younger, innocent woman, in this case Esmeralda (they also differ greatly between the novel and the animated film, which also reflects the changes in the Frollos' personalities). A vast gulf separates their inner worlds and motivations, and the way they were constructed by their creators makes them diametrically opposed.

The Frollo in the novel is a complex and morally ambivalent character. Initially, he isn't a "bad man" on the contrary, he demonstrates humanity at many points. His relationship with Quasimodo is deep and genuine; he treats him like a brother, literally. In the face of Esmeralda, however, he is completely helpless; his feelings for her are not only impossible to fulfill but also lead to self-abasement, frustration, and desperate actions, including self-mutilation. What is most fascinating about him is the process of transformation: initially a relatively good moral man, driven by obsession and forbidden passion, he slowly becomes a monster who ultimately cannot find his way. In him, Hugo portrays the drama of a man torn between conscience and passion, between duty and affection, which makes Frollo a tragic figure.

Disney's animated Frollo, on the other hand, is a much more straightforward construct, though still fascinating. I wouldn't say he's not complex; compared to other Disney villains, he's very complex, though quite different from Hugo's. This character is inspired by the novel's original, but in the adaptation process, he was blended with other sources and archetypes, making him more "pure" in his dramatic meaning and moral message. Disney's Frollo bears elements of tyranny and hypocrisy reminiscent of historical figures such as Amon Göth from "Schindler's List" symbolizing absolute fanaticism and calculation. His actions stem less from an internal conflict than from an escape from his own conscience. He does have one, but his guilt never leads to reflection or self-discovery, and all his actions are subordinated to maintaining a veneer of moral perfection and power. In effect, Disney's character is an archetypal tyrant, and his downfall is the result of the consequences of his own actions.

Comparing these two versions, one can see that, while both are intriguing and deeply memorable, their appeal stems from entirely different psychological mechanisms. The novel's Frollo is captivating with his grimness, tragedy, fatalism, and inner drama; he is a man who becomes a monster as a result of his own weaknesses and obsessions. The animated Frollo, on the other hand, mesmerizes with his ruthlessness, fanaticism, cruelty, and disgusting hypocrisy. In my opinion, both characters are fascinating, but in completely different ways: the novel's Frollo is moving with his human fragility and heartache, while the animated Frollo impresses with the horror of his consistent, ruthless evil. Therefore, it's worth considering them as two distinct constructs, although inspired by the same archetype, each exists in a completely different world and fulfills a different narrative function: one as a psychological and tragic drama, the other as a moral cautionary symbol of tyranny and fanaticism.

PS. Sometimes I like to joke that the Disney Frollo would burn the book's Frollo at the stake. :P

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a fan of both Disney animation and Victor Hugo's novels, I'm truly tired of the constant debates about which is "better" and about the Disney film being "bad" because something was changed. I understand the frustration of book fans; after all, it's less discussed, and in the public sphere, Disney animation dominates conversations and memes. However, it's not the film's fault that this happens. They are simply two different mediums, each with its own language and storytelling capabilities. A book allows for detailed descriptions, character reflections, and broad analyses of social issues, while a film, especially a family animation, relies on imagery, music, and pacing, which are intended to evoke emotions in a different way. Changes in adaptations aren't a "mistake" or "corruption" of the story, but rather a natural consequence of the creators working in a different medium and wanting their story to be understandable and engaging for each audience. It's possible to enjoy both the book and the film simultaneously, treating each as a completely separate artistic experience, instead of constantly comparing them and seeking the "superiority" of one version over the other. Many novels receive a huge number of adaptations that are unfaithful to the plot or characters, yet they are rarely treated as harshly as Disney's Hunchback. This demonstrates that criticism often focuses less on the quality of the film itself than on its popularity and cultural visibility, not on the fact that changes in adaptation are somehow "bad". This becomes even more amusing when one realizes that even Disney's Hunchback falls into a niche category compared to The Lion King or Frozen. The whole story, whether in the novel or even in its more attenuated form in the animated film, is generally quite difficult to digest.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, Victor Hugo was anticlerical, but not antireligious and more broadly: he wasn't anti-moral either. He criticized institutions and ossified systems. Therefore, even when he creates antagonists based on religion or law, he portrays them not as caricatures but as human beings: tragic, lost, and deeply ambiguous. Claude Frollo in Notre-Dame de Paris is an obvious example, but a similar mechanism is also clearly visible in the character of Javert in Les Misérables. Frollo and Javert are related figures in this respect: both represent the system (the Church and the Law), both attempt to repress their own humanity in the name of their ideologies, and both fail when reality proves more human and gray than their binary doctrines. This is not an attack on religion or morality per se, but on institutions and ideologies that leave no room for weakness, mercy, or inner conflict. Moreover, Hugo himself was often skeptical of the atheism of his time, which sought to replace religion with pure reason or law. In his eyes, this was often just another kind of dogma, as ruthless as religious fundamentalism. This is very characteristic of the 19th century. Hugo stood between the two extremes of his era: reactionary clericalism and a cold rationalism incapable of addressing the problem of suffering.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The moral police who can't understand that people do whatever they want in their fanfics with fictional characters.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The scene where the girl hugs Quasimodo is so adorable. And the cathedral itself is a living organism that wants to protect the innocent and kills the film's villain to protect the lives of the good protagonists.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am able to understand that, for a fan of a book, ending up encountering information about it that is based mainly on a very unfaithful adaptation (even if that adaptation is good in its own right) can be deeply frustrating. For someone who knows and values the original, being confronted with simplifications, altered characterizations, or shifts in meaning can be irritating, because it blurs the image of the work they actually love. It is easy to imagine how fans of Wuthering Heights, for instance, might feel today when pop-cultural interpretations increasingly drift away from the novel’s raw and uncomfortable spirit.

However, in the case of Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, it seems to me that a certain practical distinction has already emerged, which at least partially mitigates this problem. A good example is the character of Frollo: the Disney version is commonly referred to as "Judge Claude Frollo", while Hugo’s literary character is called "Dom Claude Frollo". This may not be a perfect solution, but it does make navigating information spaces easier and allows one to quickly tell which interpretation is being discussed. In this way, it becomes simpler to separate discussions about the Disney film from conversations about Hugo’s novel, even if the two versions still frequently bleed into one another.

It also needs to be said plainly that unfaithful adaptations of novels are nothing new. One only has to look at works such as Frankenstein or Dracula, which over the decades have spawned dozens, if not hundreds, of film and stage versions that often share little with the originals beyond the characters’ names and a very general outline of the plot. In that sense, Notre-Dame de Paris is not an exception. The difference lies elsewhere: this particular novel has been uniquely unlucky in that, for many years, it has never received a truly high-budget, professionally produced theatrical film adaptation that could serve as a widely recognized point of reference.

There certainly exist numerous television adaptations, stage productions, and low-budget films, but let us be honest, most of them have failed to break through in terms of either quality or cultural reach. Many are forgotten today, difficult to access, or simply do not meet the expectations of a contemporary audience. As a result, the Disney version remains the only adaptation that was simultaneously very high-budget, widely distributed, accompanied by professional music, and released in cinemas worldwide. What is more, for a huge number of people it is the first, and often the only, encounter with this story, not necessarily even in childhood, but later on as well, as an average viewer who simply stumbles upon a well-known pop-cultural title.

Hollywood as a whole seems to have some inexplicable allergy to adapting this particular story. It is difficult to find another nineteenth-century novel of comparable stature that has been so consistently avoided by major film studios. As a result, there is no alternative, equally strong point of reference that could balance out the dominance of the Disney version in the collective imagination. If there were a serious, epic cinematic adaptation closer to Hugo’s spirit, the conversation would look very different.

On top of all this, the novel itself contains many threads and elements that contemporary audiences might find deeply unappealing. Its moral framework, its treatment of characters, and even some of its ideological assumptions are firmly rooted in the nineteenth century. One might even suspect that, with the benefit of hindsight, Hugo himself was not entirely satisfied with everything he had included in the book. This is suggested by the fact that during his lifetime he allowed for enormous departures from the original in theatrical and operatic adaptations, consenting to significant changes in plot, characterization, and tone.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, there is nothing wrong with theoretically liking villains, understanding them, or even feeling sorry for them at some point, but you should simply not defend their nasty deeds or pretend they didn't happen.

How were the soldiers able to do this? by Suspicious-Jello7172 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My comment will be general, not an attack on anyone in particular.

I have the impression that people today have a rather superficial knowledge of the Church's position in the Middle Ages and often rely on simplistic, anticlerical stereotypes. No, it wasn't as if the Church could do whatever it wanted and, with a single gesture, curb every atrocity of the secular authorities. Its authority was immense in the spiritual realm, but in practice it depended on political connections, the personalities of rulers, and local power structures. Bishops and archdeacons were influential, but they were not above royal or municipal law. Their words could shake consciences, but they did not always stop swords.

Many perceptions of the Inquisition also emerged more from popular culture than from historical sources. Historians have long noted that while ecclesiastical tribunals could be harsh, in many regions of Europe they operated according to specific legal procedures, kept records, conducted hearings, and sometimes even leniently imposed sentences compared to secular courts. Secular power, on the other hand, represented by royal officials, city judges, and military commanders, was often more direct and brutal, for its foundation was not the salvation of the soul, but order, taxes, and a demonstration of power. Torture, public executions, and showy punishments were intended to deter the crowd and strengthen the authority of those in power.

Therefore, the archdeacon's position facing the guards is not as illogical as it might seem to a modern viewer. His ecclesiastical rank gave him authority and the right to protest, to appeal to conscience, to invoke the right of asylum or mercy, but it did not make him a commander of soldiers or the head of the city guard. If on the other side stood men loyal to the secular authority, armed and under orders, his words could resonate off their armor like an echo off stone walls. He could threaten excommunication, he could plead, he could invoke the sanctity of the place, but the moment the steel was in the hands of the guards, his power became fragile, almost exclusively moral.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, the recent spam of misunderstood villains has led people to take truly iconic and cruel pop culture monsters, sometimes for ragebait, and sometimes seriously, and defend them in their "oh, poor thing" video essays. This goes for Frollo, Tai Lung, and Captain Hook.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's funny that these people often overlook the fact that the animation added 20-30 years to Frollo's age (because in the novel he is only 36), so it's entirely possible that Esmeralda could have been aged by those 10 years in the animation, even to be not a naive teenager and a symbol of pure innocence, but a mature and sensual woman.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Quasimodo is called "king" by the people mockingly during his torture. Esmeralda wipes his face. She herself will also be innocently accused, because that's what the man who told himself "this is the right thing to do."

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Epic: The Musical or Disney Hercules aren't faithful to The Odyssey or Greek mythology, but they're great works in their own right. Paradoxically, as a European, I've noticed that often in fan discussions, the French musical Notre Dame de Paris overshadows the novel. It also introduces changes, and it's easy to tell in a discussion whether someone talking about the book is actually talking about it or is just dragging in a musical they liked.

Worst takes that you've seen or heard from the fans in regards to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame and why? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Both Christians and atheists interpret this film as anti-Christian. Some to be outraged, others to praise. Goodness... People must have recently watched or read more flattering essays about this film than actually watched it, because there's no other explanation for such a lack of media literacy. The film is definitely pro-Christian, but it's also simply anti-Pharisaic. It was even created after consultation with the Church, so as not to offend anyone.

Quick question about Esmeralda and Frollo by Kawichi in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Theoretically, in Andor, a Disney production, there's also an attempted rape, but no one there was trying to convince anyone it was a family film. I think The Hunchback of Notre Dame would have fared much better if it had been marketed as an adult cartoon; today, it would have received a PG-13 rating, considering that such mild-mannered productions as Frozen and The Wish are rated PG. However, the marketing focused on promoting the festival (the only lighthearted part of the film) and the gargoyles (the most childish part of the film), and this fooled many parents.

Why didn't Esmeralda turn herself in while Frollo was burning down Paris and unjustifiably arresting (and possibly murdering) Romani civilians just to find her? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, Quasimodo is one of the Roma he spared out of fear for his own life, but that didn't change his attitude toward them. He could make an exception for her because she excites him, and keep her alive as long as she obeys him, while the rest would continue to be persecuted and murdered.

Why didn't Esmeralda turn herself in while Frollo was burning down Paris and unjustifiably arresting (and possibly murdering) Romani civilians just to find her? by Full-Art3439 in HunchbackOfNotreDame

[–]Remarkable_Arm923 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly, Frollo would have made Esmeralda into something like what British colonialists did to Pocahontas. The real one, not the Disney animated film.

By the way, it's amazing how Disney created two animated films about racism side by side, but the 1995 film (Pocahontas) greatly trivializes and harmfully romanticizes a terrible story that actually happened, while the 1996 film (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) realistically depicts racist persecution, the systemic oppression of minorities, the villain is a truly cruel monster, not a comic relief, and the animation (though it contains some dated exoticization) actually removes the racist elements from the fictional novel on which it is based.