Mulan (2020) Official Trailer

[The Glyphstone]

I feel like that kind of defeats the idea of Gaston. He is the awesome action hero, strong, handsome, confident, except he turns out the bad guy. In a way his story is already presented from an alternative viewpoint. Flip it back and you're left with a heroic dude trying to safe a hostage with Stockholm syndrome from a beastman. Pretty standard material. I'm not sure that qualifies as a surprising story.

I wouldn't flip it at all. Have him be the heroic, strong, handsome character who he thinks he is at the start, and make it a story of how his twin obsessions with Belle and the Beast push him down the villain road. It's the same story, just from a different PoV. Maybe even play camera tricks where his descent into madness is echoed in lighting and the behavior of the other villagers in backgrounds and side shots. You don't cheer him as a hero, you mourn as he becomes a monster.

[Themrys]

I wouldn't flip it at all. Have him be the heroic, strong, handsome character who he thinks he is at the start, and make it a story of how his twin obsessions with Belle and the Beast push him down the villain road. It's the same story, just from a different PoV. Maybe even play camera tricks where his descent into madness is echoed in lighting and the behavior of the other villagers in backgrounds and side shots. You don't cheer him as a hero, you mourn as he becomes a monster.

I would make him less blatantly misogynist.

He would work better as a NiceGuy(TM) who thinks he is entitled to a woman because he is oh so very nice, unlike that guy who took her father hostage to coerce her into moving in with him.

And then, in the end, he still threatens to have Belle's father declared insane, and shortly thereafter realizes he has become the monster he thought he was fighting. He can have his epiphany shortly before falling off that tower (that was his Disney villain death, right?) and, unlike the original, take the Beast with him.

Redeeming himself through sacrificing his life will make the whole story more satisfying than him just becoming a villain and dying.

You know, like Boromir. That plot would have been pretty boring if he had just been a traitor and been killed by an orc arrow to the back.

[Traab]

I would make him less blatantly misogynist.

He would work better as a NiceGuy(TM) who thinks he is entitled to a woman because he is oh so very nice, unlike that guy who took her father hostage to coerce her into moving in with him.

And then, in the end, he still threatens to have Belle's father declared insane, and shortly thereafter realizes he has become the monster he thought he was fighting. He can have his epiphany shortly before falling off that tower (that was his Disney villain death, right?) and, unlike the original, take the Beast with him.

Redeeming himself through sacrificing his life will make the whole story more satisfying than him just becoming a villain and dying.

You know, like Boromir. That plot would have been pretty boring if he had just been a traitor and been killed by an orc arrow to the back.

I say instead of Nice Guy we go with, "This is the only woman in the town who isnt up on my jock 24/7. I find that fascinating, while she is a little odd with her reading and such (and im pretty sure that WAS considered odd back then) I wouldnt mind having a wife who isnt a vapid airhead follower." Then have him fall through being unable to deal with rejection. After all, he probably hasnt been told no since he was 6 and asked mom for another dozen eggs cookie. At first he treats it like a stalk and hunt, he has to find the right bait to lure her in, so he tries all sorts of things to impress her or convince her to get with him but he sucks at having to try since he never had to before. So he keeps screwing it up. Clearly the flexing manliness isnt working but what else can he do? The real fall is at the end when he realizes she chose a literal beast over him. HIM! GASTON!!! He had been worried about her all this time, the only clue was that madman dad of hers babbling about magic castles that nobody knows exists, then she comes back, he is so relieved, and she rejects him AGAIN! Ok folks, time to take out this animal and his witchcraft castle that obviously has bespelled my belle! GRAB THE TORCHES!

[Bartmanhomer]

I still wish Mushu the dragon was in this live-action movie.

[Scarlet Knight]

Frollo shouldn't have been a Disney character in the first place. Yes, he can be sympathetic in a wider everything-is-terrible Victor Hugo sense, but I still don't want to sympathize with the man, for he is awful.

Frollo just needs tragic hero motivation. Imagine if Javert from Les Miserables was dropped into the opera Carmen as Don Jose and you have a pro-Follo HBND.

If the gypsies are not sympathetic refugees, but the smugglers, cut-purses, and con men of the opera ( and Court of Miracles), his hate makes perfect sense.

Esmeralda beguiles Phoebus of the guard as a way to protect the thieves while they plunder the naive festival goers. He sees his own adopted son become a sympathizer. He knows lust is a weapon that leads good men to evil and he, himsef, has to fight her spell. All we need is the cursed rose to make him the tragic hero. Like the opera, it doesn't matter if the rose is truly cursed as long as he and Esmeralda believe.

He is doomed but will go down fighting for Paris.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So the message would be "sometimes minorities are suspected of all being thieves and cutthroats because they totally are and also they use witchcraft to make poor innocent men horny for them so they'll try to rape them so you should totally set them on fire before anyone has a chance to convict you of any wrongdoing"?

I'm not sure the world is ready for that Disney movie.

[Themrys]

So the message would be "sometimes minorities are suspected of all being thieves and cutthroats because they totally are and also they use witchcraft to make poor innocent men horny for them so they'll try to rape them so you should totally set them on fire before anyone has a chance to convict you of any wrongdoing"?

I'm not sure the world is ready for that Disney movie.

Yeah, sounds a bit depressing.


I'll try to sell them my version. First change is that it takes place in an earlier time period.

Then the plot is: Frollo, a good man with some minor flaws, sees a mob with torches and pitchforks form to burn Esmeralda at the stake. He tells the lynchmob off, because witches don't exist, and no good Christian would believe in them. He then goes to see Esmeralda as, after all, she might have claimed to be a witch, which would be wrong, and he as opinions on that.

She thanks him for intervening and assures him that she never claimed to be a witch.

He falls in lust, and goes home to angst about it some, then ultimately recognizes that her being sexy isn't magical at all, it is just his own weakness. (Add some plot before that epiphany happening, so there's some suspense. Perhaps a lynchmob abducts Esmeralda to torture her and Phoebus saves her?)

Then he manipulates things so that Phoebus meets Esmeralda, the two fall in love, marry and ideally move far away, so that the temptation is removed. (Quasimodo can be his helpful sidekick in this. He will be told that Phoebus has to fall in love with Esmeralda so she will be safe from persecution.)

The end is him happily watching the sunset, congratulating himself for escaping the fires of hell, and making some witty remark that takes on an ironic meaning for people who know that Notre Dame will burn down in 2019.

[Talakeal]

A live action Cruella movie is already in production, it stars Emma Stone and is scheduled for a 2021 release.

As for Gaston, there is no need to make a movie casting him in a more sympathetic light as he is already the hero.

[Themrys]

As for Gaston, there is no need to make a movie casting him in a more sympathetic light as he is already the hero.

I hope you are joking.

A case can be made for the Beast being a villain, but that doesn't make Gaston a hero, it just makes him yet another villain.

[Scarlet Knight]

The end is him happily watching the sunset, congratulating himself for escaping the fires of hell, and making some witty remark that takes on an ironic meaning for people who know that Notre Dame will burn down in 2019.

I like that ending .

So the message would be "sometimes minorities are suspected of all being thieves and cutthroats because they totally are and also they use witchcraft to make poor innocent men horny for them so they'll try to rape them so you should totally set them on fire before anyone has a chance to convict you of any wrongdoing"?

I'm not sure the world is ready for that Disney movie.

The message is simple: "Don't judge a book by it's cover". Villians and thieves can be among the majority or minority. Quasimodo is a beautiful soul inside an ugly body. Emeralda, as the villian, would be an evil soul in a beautiful body.

Basically, evil Esmeralda is just Ursula from Little Mermaid in gorgeous form. She uses seduction, mind control & magic to gain what she wants and is killed in the end by the hero. She is not burned because she is suspected of being a witch; she is burned because she IS a witch.

Ironically, Esmeralda is brought down by her own charm spell from the cursed scarf. Quasimodo becomes her minion, Phoebus, her toy, but Frollo is driven insane by her lust spell and burns her to stop his torment, thus saving everyone. Cue Themrys's ending.

[Psyren]

So they really are determined to remake their entire catalog of movies instead of new stories?

Sure. Why have artistic integrity and value when you can have MONEY!

"Instead of?" They're very clearly doing both, and with massive success Frozen, Moana, Zootopia, Tangled, Big Hero 6, Wreck-It-Ralph, Inside Out and Coco all came out in the last 10 years and all have been hits, some smash hits. And you'd better believe that there will be live action versions of at least some of these 10-20 years down the line to help zoomers recapture their childhoods too, assuming we have a planet left at that point.

With that said I have not been a fan of the live-action remakes at all. Lindsay Ellis' legendary takedown of Beauty and the Beast summed up all my thoughts on that movie, Aladdin was meh and Lion King's expressionless cgi animals totally missed the mark for me. I'm hoping Mulan reverses that trend by actually improving on the original instead of adapting it straight with a few added bells and whistles to pad out the run time.

I still wish Mushu the dragon was in this live-action movie.

I don't, at all. First, that kind of goofy 90s character isn't necessary today, especially if they're trying to tell a semi-serious Chinese fable. Second, even if they wanted to do that, whichever poor schlub they signed on would be inevitably compared to Eddie Murphy and panned for it, just like nobody could dream of living up to Robin Williams' genie.

What I will say though is that there's a risk they're adding too much, with the Witch character. Because not only is she fighting Mulan, in the trailer we see her trying to get into Mulan's head with the "if they find out who you are they'll kill you" line. She seems to be implying that the Not-Huns are way more progressive, given that she has a high rank there, and which is going to muddy the waters for our heroine's motivation seemingly for no reason.

[Themrys]

The message is simple: "Don't judge a book by it's cover". Villians and thieves can be among the majority or minority. Quasimodo is a beautiful soul inside an ugly body. Emeralda, as the villian, would be an evil soul in a beautiful body.

No, no, no.

Quasimodo being a hero is original (or was at the time, at least). People did think ugly men had ugly souls. That went against the grain, perhaps still does to some extent.

Making Esmeralda evil is not original at all. Men have blamed women for their own desire to rape said women since time immemorial. It is not new or revolutionary. It is extremely boring.

Thieving gypsies are also stereotype and boring, but at least you can argue that that sort of thing happened in reality. Women using magic on men to make them want to rape them ... never happened, but is still something that men today like to believe. (They claim it's women's clothes since believing in magic would get them laughed at nowadays, but really, the effects they claim it has on them, it could as well be sorcery.)

So ... boring story, but extremely harmful implications.

You don't get to use my ending for that.

[Traab]

No, no, no.

Quasimodo being a hero is original (or was at the time, at least). People did think ugly men had ugly souls. That went against the grain, perhaps still does to some extent.

Making Esmeralda evil is not original at all. Men have blamed women for their own desire to rape said women since time immemorial. It is not new or revolutionary. It is extremely boring.

Thieving gypsies are also stereotype and boring, but at least you can argue that that sort of thing happened in reality. Women using magic on men to make them want to rape them ... never happened, but is still something that men today like to believe. (They claim it's women's clothes since believing in magic would get them laughed at nowadays, but really, the effects they claim it has on them, it could as well be sorcery.)

So ... boring story, but extremely harmful implications.

You don't get to use my ending for that.

Its only harmful if its not actually "true". Your post seems to imply that daring to make a gypsy woman actually be evil and have actual real in setting magic to enforce her will is somehow itself an evil thing, like women are not allowed to be bad guys in this way because a lot of dudes lie to themselves about their own reactions. Thats just silly. There are no implications in that like "Omg I knew it! Sexy women are evil!!!!!"

[Brother Oni]

I'm hoping Mulan reverses that trend by actually improving on the original instead of adapting it straight with a few added bells and whistles to pad out the run time.

In line with the Hunchback of Notre Dame alternate endings, I think adding some bells and whistles from The Sui Tang Romance version of the Hua Mulan legend would be going a step too far.

What I will say though is that there's a risk they're adding too much, with the Witch character. Because not only is she fighting Mulan, in the trailer we see her trying to get into Mulan's head with the "if they find out who you are they'll kill you" line. She seems to be implying that the Not-Huns are way more progressive, given that she has a high rank there, and which is going to muddy the waters for our heroine's motivation seemingly for no reason.

While I think going into the gender politics and cultural expectations of the time period would fall foul of the board rules, it depends on how far the movie follows the legend - Hua Mulan made it up through the ranks from foot soldier to general, and false impersonation of a military officer is normally an offense regardless of the culture.

With regard to the 'witch', I would suspect she only has high rank due to the Hun leader's sufferance and the usefulness of her abilities, rather than having that position of power due to any meritocracy system.

I've made mention of the heroine's motivation in other Mulan threads, so I won't repeat what I think of that paper thin excuse.

[Maryring]

"Instead of?" They're very clearly doing both, and with massive success Frozen, Moana, Zootopia, Tangled, Big Hero 6, Wreck-It-Ralph, Inside Out and Coco all came out in the last 10 years and all have been hits, some smash hits. And you'd better believe that there will be live action versions of at least some of these 10-20 years down the line to help zoomers recapture their childhoods too, assuming we have a planet left at that point.

With that said I have not been a fan of the live-action remakes at all. Lindsay Ellis' legendary takedown of Beauty and the Beast summed up all my thoughts on that movie, Aladdin was meh and Lion King's expressionless cgi animals totally missed the mark for me. I'm hoping Mulan reverses that trend by actually improving on the original instead of adapting it straight with a few added bells and whistles to pad out the run time.

We are obviously talking about the live action remaking of their old catalogue of movies as being without artistic integrity. {scrubbed}

[Eldan]

In line with the Hunchback of Notre Dame alternate endings, I think adding some bells and whistles from The Sui Tang Romance version of the Hua Mulan legend would be going a step too far.



While I think going into the gender politics and cultural expectations of the time period would fall foul of the board rules, it depends on how far the movie follows the legend - Hua Mulan made it up through the ranks from foot soldier to general, and false impersonation of a military officer is normally an offense regardless of the culture.

With regard to the 'witch', I would suspect she only has high rank due to the Hun leader's sufferance and the usefulness of her abilities, rather than having that position of power due to any meritocracy system.

I've made mention of the heroine's motivation in other Mulan threads, so I won't repeat what I think of that paper thin excuse.

I recently got into some discussions on older Chinese versions of the Mulan story with a few Chinese people on another forum and it was pretty interesting, though. Like apparently some older versions of Mulan coming not from Han culture, but from other Chinese cultures were women at least riding and shooting bows were considered more normal, so she already had experience before she joined the army. And served for over ten years.

Would of course not work at all with the message of the disney movie.

[Lord Torath]

Have any of the live action films so far been better than their animated counterpart?

Nope, and there's not much chance they ever will be really. Because, well, an unnecessary remake motivated by fat stacks of cash farmed from the reputation of the original isn't going to be.

You won't see them remaking things that could have been done better first time around, because those things wouldn't make fat stacks of cash based on the original's reputation..

I actually really liked the Aladdin remake. Will Smith made a fantastic Genie (he's no Robin Williams, but fortunately, he didn't try to be). Jasmine gets much more of a role, and a beautiful song, "Speechless". Abu is not as cute, but he grows on you.

If they can do a good job with the aliens, I'd love to see a live-action version of Lilo and Stitch.

[Kitten Champion]

Its only harmful if its not actually "true". Your post seems to imply that daring to make a gypsy woman actually be evil and have actual real in setting magic to enforce her will is somehow itself an evil thing, like women are not allowed to be bad guys in this way because a lot of dudes lie to themselves about their own reactions. Thats just silly. There are no implications in that like "Omg I knew it! Sexy women are evil!!!!!"

No, it's that Romani people have been continually discriminated against and plagued by harmful stereotypes for centuries, of which Hugo's original Hunchback of Notre Dame also perpetrates rather severely. Saying "those people really are that bad" and our hyper-repressed would-be rapist should be the hero here is all kinds of messed up.

[Dienekes]

No, it's that Romani people have been continually discriminated against and plagued by harmful stereotypes for centuries, of which Hugo's original Hunchback of Notre Dame also perpetrates rather severely. Saying "those people really are that bad" and our hyper-repressed would-be rapist should be the hero here is all kinds of messed up.

Yeah. Here's a thing. I, personally, am not really a fan of the trend to try and make the villains all relatable and heroic. Because, perfectly honest, while you can sort of twist things around to give someone a decent motivation, a lot of Disney villains (and beyond) are freaking reprehensible. Honestly, the best of them has been Maleficent. And she curses a child. Not even the character that directly harmed her. Like if any character had acted that way, they'd be insane. They cursed a baby. What the hell? And the movie just glosses over it with a handwave and a "she didn't really mean it" crap.

Frollo, in the book, is one of the most complex and interesting characters who is full of good and bad. And watching his descent into madness over the course of the story is pretty great. But it still ends with the clear message that his attempted rapes are vile and he needs punishment. I'd kinda despise it if he gets mellowed out in ways to make him the good guy.

Now personally, I'm not completely opposed to a movie that shows a discriminated against minority can perform illicit and evil acts. That's how the world is. When people are repressed to the point they are outcast of society they have a tendency to create counter-cultures and break that societies rules. Petty theft is not exactly uncommon among the Romani people. But it would take one hell of a story to make the case for showing that this is not caused because there is something inherently horrible about the Romani people and their culture, but because of centuries of marginalization. And I just don't believe that Disney or their interpretation of Notre Dame is in any way a good vehicle for that story.

[Ramza00]

No, it's that Romani people have been continually discriminated against and plagued by harmful stereotypes for centuries, of which Hugo's original Hunchback of Notre Dame also perpetrates rather severely. Saying "those people really are that bad" and our hyper-repressed would-be rapist should be the hero here is all kinds of messed up.

This!

^{[Has to add extra letters for the rules say 5 characters is not enough, I need 10.]}

[Traab]

No, it's that Romani people have been continually discriminated against and plagued by harmful stereotypes for centuries, of which Hugo's original Hunchback of Notre Dame also perpetrates rather severely. Saying "those people really are that bad" and our hyper-repressed would-be rapist should be the hero here is all kinds of messed up.

But again, thats ascribing things that dont exist to it. The new version in no way is saying "Romani really are all bad people" Its saying, "This group here are the bad guys because they use mind control magic." And if the entire story is altered so that no, frollo isnt a rapist, he is a mind controlled tool trying to break free.

All that being said, I kinda like the idea of the whole "your side, my side, and the truth" approach to films. Like, we see the disney original where the bad guy or girl is portrayed as such, then we see in the new version the so called bad guys version of events where we learn that according to them, all this was justified because the "good guy" was a terrible person who did abc. I dont know if you could stretch it for a third time, this time with an objective truth of what actually happened, but the idea is intriguing from a "victors write the history books" standard as we learn that the good guy wasnt all sweetness and light, the bad guy wasnt satan reborn, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[KatsOfLoathing]

But again, thats ascribing things that dont exist to it. The new version in no way is saying "Romani really are all bad people" Its saying, "This group here are the bad guys because they use mind control magic." And if the entire story is altered so that no, frollo isnt a rapist, he is a mind controlled tool trying to break free.

Espousing those kinds of strictly surface-level narrative conceits and themes is a big part of why this discussion exists in the first place. Subtext exists even where we don't intend it to. And portraying a minority culture in an antagonistic light, especially in an adaptation of a work where one of them is a protagonist, just isn't a good look on so many levels.

But then, this discussion is edging dangerously close to real-world religion and politics. Probably best to drop it here.

[Ramza00]

But again, thats ascribing things that dont exist to it. The new version in no way is saying "Romani really are all bad people" Its saying, "This group here are the bad guys because they use mind control magic." And if the entire story is altered so that no, frollo isnt a rapist, he is a mind controlled tool trying to break free.

All that being said, I kinda like the idea of the whole "your side, my side, and the truth" approach to films. Like, we see the disney original where the bad guy or girl is portrayed as such, then we see in the new version the so called bad guys version of events where we learn that according to them, all this was justified because the "good guy" was a terrible person who did abc. I dont know if you could stretch it for a third time, this time with an objective truth of what actually happened, but the idea is intriguing from a "victors write the history books" standard as we learn that the good guy wasnt all sweetness and light, the bad guy wasnt satan reborn, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Do you hear what you are saying? This is the same Frollo who when he first meets Phoebus compares Romani [which is a real life minority who has been persecuted for centuries] to bugs and he picks up a stone of the church, uses the stone to smash the bugs, and leaves the stone upside down [thus signifying Frollo's upside down morality, and how he uses other authority to tell a story of how he is legitimate.]

Why would it be a good idea, to make the story where Frollo is being controlled by Romani magic [remember this is a real life minority] and thus Frollo is right to genocide these people [for this was Frollo's goal after all.] Do you hear yourself? Why would Disney want to make that type of movie?

[Kitten Champion]

But again, thats ascribing things that dont exist to it. The new version in no way is saying "Romani really are all bad people" Its saying, "This group here are the bad guys because they use mind control magic." And if the entire story is altered so that no, frollo isnt a rapist, he is a mind controlled tool trying to break free.

The... Romani people committing darkest sorcery and leading good men to their doom is itself a fairly regressive stereotype in fiction. Yes, because of systemic discrimination it wasn't odd to see Romani people working less reputable trades on the margins of society - like fortune tellers - but making Esmeralda into an actual witch with actual powers to justify the canonical madness of Frollo and her subsequent hanging is... an unwelcome revision to my mind.

Mostly, you're creating a story where "This group here" enact a conspiracy against the Archdeacon of Notre Dame, aided with the use of black magic and their sexual wiles, leading him into perdition. All for some larger nefarious goal against the people of Paris. I'm not inclined to view such a broad re-characterization of this story as something without an intrinsic xenophobic agenda underlying it to be honest. Particularly as Disney already removed some the more glaring racist elements from Hugo's work for their weird-ass animated movie, swooping around to create an apology for Claude Frollo at the deliberate expense of an oft marginalized peoples...is not a great idea, I submit.

All that being said, I kinda like the idea of the whole "your side, my side, and the truth" approach to films. Like, we see the disney original where the bad guy or girl is portrayed as such, then we see in the new version the so called bad guys version of events where we learn that according to them, all this was justified because the "good guy" was a terrible person who did abc. I dont know if you could stretch it for a third time, this time with an objective truth of what actually happened, but the idea is intriguing from a "victors write the history books" standard as we learn that the good guy wasnt all sweetness and light, the bad guy wasnt satan reborn, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

There's a difference in the nature of movies like Hunchback of Notre Dame compared to adaptations of actual fairy tales like the Brothers Grimm and H.C. Andersen's works, that they have simplistic black & white morality and ultimately exists outside of history. Many villains exists merely as functions in the story, some don't even have names. Wondering what they think and feel as living breathing three-dimensional persons in a world closer to reality is interesting, and can explore some of the jagged edges.

The idea of "everyone is a hero in their own story" is fertile ground for endless exploration, especially for characters who feature in works with minimal characterization because of the expectations of the genre or because of the antiquity of the work.

The problem with Claude Frollo is that in Hunchback he isn't some nebulous antagonist forced into the role of villain by the erosion of nuance for the sake of children stories, his character was pretty well fleshed out without much ambiguity as to why he does what he does. You'd just be changing the story to accommodate him, and not for especially great reasons.

[Traab]

Do you hear what you are saying? This is the same Frollo who when he first meets Phoebus compares Romani [which is a real life minority who has been persecuted for centuries] to bugs and he picks up a stone of the church, uses the stone to smash the bugs, and leaves the stone upside down [thus signifying Frollo's upside down morality, and how he uses other authority to tell a story of how he is legitimate.]

Why would it be a good idea, to make the story where Frollo is being controlled by Romani magic [remember this is a real life minority] and thus Frollo is right to genocide these people [for this was Frollo's goal after all.] Do you hear yourself? Why would Disney want to make that type of movie?

Thats the point, it WOULDNT BE THE SAME FROLLO! The idea to basically alter the entire story and motivations and actions of the characters to produce one where frollo is the good guy.

Frollo just needs tragic hero motivation. Imagine if Javert from Les Miserables was dropped into the opera Carmen as Don Jose and you have a pro-Follo HBND.

If the gypsies are not sympathetic refugees, but the smugglers, cut-purses, and con men of the opera ( and Court of Miracles), his hate makes perfect sense.

Esmeralda beguiles Phoebus of the guard as a way to protect the thieves while they plunder the naive festival goers. He sees his own adopted son become a sympathizer. He knows lust is a weapon that leads good men to evil and he, himsef, has to fight her spell. All we need is the cursed rose to make him the tragic hero. Like the opera, it doesn't matter if the rose is truly cursed as long as he and Esmeralda believe.

He is doomed but will go down fighting for Paris.

I will admit I missed that she wasnt an actual witch, probably blur between the mulan movie and ideas for other remakes, but the original idea was to basically create a different character for frollo, one that was justified in his actions, you know, making the villain the hero? Yes, we are all VERY well aware that frollo is an evil dude with hateful opinions and carries out horrible deeds, that doesnt mean he cant be rewritten as a sympathetic character instead. Sort of like how malificent was rewritten. Or the wicked witch of the west.

[Mystic Muse]

The issue with rewriting Frollo to be the hero, which is not the case with Maleficent or the Wicked Witch of the West, is that the people who become the villains are a real life culture.

If you changed who the antagonists were, the story would be fine. If you keep them a real life culture, you have all sorts of problems that will pop up.

[Ramza00]

The issue with rewriting Frollo to be the hero, which is not the case with Maleficent or the Wicked Witch of the West, is that the people who become the villains are a real life culture.

If you changed who the antagonists were, the story would be fine. If you keep them a real life culture, you have all sorts of problems that will pop up.

Problems is being nice and "simple way of putting it."

And it is a too simple way of putting it for this stuff has real consequences. Propaganda works, and thus flattering and vilifying storytelling work for good ends and also simultaneously it can work for vile ends.

Stories can move people and it is not always in the way that are noble and that raise up. Since stories can movie people in both directions you have to ask when you are making a movie with real life cultures is there a chance my story I made for fun, and the hope for movie profits, can it actually hurt people by accident.

And the answer to this question is yes. We have lots of social science literature that says resoundly the answer is yes.

[KatsOfLoathing]

Thats the point, it WOULDNT BE THE SAME FROLLO! The idea to basically alter the entire story and motivations and actions of the characters to produce one where frollo is the good guy.

Isn't... isn't the whole point of Hunchback that the true heroes aren't the ones you expect? Quasimodo is a deformed, freakish outcast, but he's the protagonist of the film. Frollo is a religious champion and leader of the people, but is actually the villain of the piece. Flipping that dynamic around (and maybe getting rid of Quasimodo to fit the new narrative, whatever) feels like more of a step back in storytelling to me than a creative new approach.

I will admit I missed that she wasnt an actual witch, probably blur between the mulan movie and ideas for other remakes, but the original idea was to basically create a different character for frollo, one that was justified in his actions, you know, making the villain the hero? Yes, we are all VERY well aware that frollo is an evil dude with hateful opinions and carries out horrible deeds, that doesnt mean he cant be rewritten as a sympathetic character instead. Sort of like how malificent was rewritten. Or the wicked witch of the west.

The difference there being that Malificent and the Wicked Witch are not representatives for real-life minority groups that have faced systemic prejudice and stereotyping for centuries. Kitten Champion also made the good point that the "another side, another story" approach works best when you're working with characters the audience doesn't know a lot about, and neither Malificent nor the Wicked Witch are very developed characters in their own right. Frollo, on the other hand, is.

[Mechalich]

The original Hunchback of Notre Dame novel is very weird and has an extremely sprawling storyline that doesn't even really have a proper villain, or if it does the villain is arguably 'the state' which is very much Victor Hugo's wheelhouse. It also blurs the line between the Romani and a more generalized subculture of thugs, con men, and other assorted fringe elements of Paris (the 'Truands') represented primarily by the character of Clopin Trouillefou (Esmeralda's 'gypsy' identity is part of a complex plot point involving character origins, if I recall correctly she's not actively a part of any sort of Romani culture seperate from the generalized Truands grouping). Frollo is very much a bad guy in the novel, but he's also at least partially sympathetic in that's he's struggling with all the things priests usually struggle with (working on 300 years since the novel was published, guess what hasn't changed in the world today) and due to his brother's continual descent into near-total dissolution that Frollo cannot find any way to prevent. Additionally, in the novel Esmeralda is the kind of female character from ages past who just causes men to become totally and completely infatuated with her more or less by simply existing - the novel has four principle male characters - Frollo, Phoebus, Quasimodo, and nominal protagonist Pierre Gringoire (who isn't even in the Disney film) - and all of them end up entangled with Esmeralda on pretexts of varying degrees of flimsy.

Hunchback generally shares a lot in common with Les Miserables - everything is terrible, its not the fault of any one person specifically, the cruel indulgences of petty evils and willful confusion outweigh and ultimately destroy elements of personal kindness, and while those who stand to the side might prosper they do so at a terrible cost. Esmeralda can be compared to Fantine, Frollo to Javert, Quasimodo to Valjean and Phoebus to Thernadier with almost trivial ease. Hunchback is the shorter novel, mostly because its lengthy asides are significantly less lengthy (ex. Les Mis goes on for like 50 pages about Waterloo, a similar digression in Hunchback is usually only around 10), but it might actually be more chaotic and in some sense even darker.

Now, you could make Frollo a more sympathetic character. It's not even very hard, you just play up his good works and his actual devotion to God and emphasize how much he's trying only to constantly fail, but that probably makes the overall story even less coherent, because Frollo's overall psychosis at least serves as a motivating force behind events. Without that, you just have stuff happening as a part of generalized chaos.

Hunchback is probably the worst Disney film of the 90s and it's an incredible mess with relatively little relationship to the source material. I have no idea what Disney thought they were doing when they adapted it, since it's a terrible choice for kid-friendly heartwarming entertainment. The actual novel is intended to present a sort of 'and so this is Paris' viewpoint as a massive piece of social history. Frollo stands in for the Church, as an institution, and as such performs both good works - he is the one who adopts Quasimodo in the novel, Disney invented a separate character for that purpose to emphasize his villainy - but is also deeply corrupt - Frollo has a massive obsession with alchemy - and has lost its way. A more sympathetic view of the role of Catholicism in life is certain possible, even for Victor Hugo himself, as shown by the positively saintly Bishop of Digne in Les Mis. The difference probably reflects both the different historical reference frames - in post-revolutionary France the power of the Church was severely curtailed compared to during the reign of Louis IX (1482) - and Victor Hugo's own changing personal views as the novels were written thirty years apart.

[Ramza00]

Mechalich your questions are answered in the wonderful Lindsay Ellis video on the subject.



The short of it is

1) Oscar Bait
2) Rise of Musicals due to Andrew Lloyd Webber, Musicals that could make long term cash after the movie.
2) The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not just a Novel but there are 3 other famous adaptations of Hunchback between the Novel and the Disney (so 5 stories.) The success of the Disney Renaissance, the ambition of Oscar Bait and future revenues, and 4 past stories you can mine / be inspired from, caused Disney to be a little Hubristic thinking they can do no wrong and they can make it all gel in a flow like matter.

• Oh yeah Hugo's other work of Les Mis, and the success of Les Mis in theatre are other inspirations for Disney's Hunchback so it is not just 4 other stories you can draw on, Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame has many parents.

What happen though is lots of Hunchback is Incredible, but the parts do not gel together well for it is a movie created by committee and no agreed on a coherent simple main theme to tell in this story and thus the individual pieces of the movie are fighting each other. This same thing happened in Hercules, but it also happens in other movies created by committee such as Avengers 2: Age of Ultron and the 3 Hobbit movies. Contrast those to most of the MCU and the Fellowship of the Ring.

^{Sidenote: I love small aspects of Age of Ultron, Hercules, and Hunchback. But the greater flow of the story with tension and relief of tension in the story with these works are a complete mess.}

I wonder what would have happened in this world if Disney decided at the start of Hunchback that they wanted to make a PG-13 Cartoon, and purposefully marketed it as not appropriate for Children. Would the movie have succeeded or failed, and depending on this success or failure would it have changed "history" by changing what was financially successful from the 90s onward with animation.