Downtown Disney (Money Spending Central)

Hello all,

This has been a crazy summer. Three weddings have occurred (two of them, I was a part of) and a few severe break-ups. It's been the summer of love!!! Including the summer of loving Disney.

Every year, I go visit my father in Florida which means I get closer to the Mecca of all things Disney- Disney World. I don't go every year though, mainly because of funds. The closest I get every year is going to Downtown Disney (it's free so I'm there!)

So Downtown Disney. If you never been there, it is an menagerie of stores and restaurants. Entrance and parking is free ^_^. This is where Cirque de Soleil is and a few other entertainment spots sit.

There are several sections (Marketplace, West Side, Pleasure Island) but it all connects so if you want to do the whole stretch, either start at Marketplace or West Side. It is awesome and less crowded than the other parks. Probably because it doesn't have many attractions or at least children attractions. My favorite spot is Disney Interactive- five floors of gaming- all free. I spent an hour playing Soul Caliber while I was there.

A few changes have taken place there though if haven't been there in a while. One is they got rid of the two story Virgin Mobil store and turned it into a limited exhibit for Princess Diana. It's not clear how long they are keeping it up but if you like seeing a real princess, it would be fun to check it out. However, it's not free so be prepared to shell out $14 for this exhibit.

Another change is Disney is now offering hot air balloon rides! Not kidding. It's about $7 per person (which is a great price if you ask me) and gives you a bird eye view of Disney (or Dumbo view if you are that much of a nerd). If it is raining or windy, forget about it. They only do it in prime conditions. But hey, it's Florida, it rains for ten minutes then it's sunny again.

The biggest change at DD is the new restaurant, T-Rex, a Prehistoric Family Adventure. It sits right next to the McDonald's on the West Side. I say this is the biggest change because it is the biggest. It is huge! Designed by the same people who created the Rainforest Cafe franchise, it is over-the-top all about dinosaurs. But unlike Rainforest Cafe, the restaurant section is much bigger than the shopping section.

So my family decides to eat there for lunch. It's new, it will be fun. But it is new, which means a long wait and lots of people. But we got a table in sooner than expected. The reason why is because there is a table and chair squeezed into every little area. It didn't feel crowded except for the mere fact that every table seemed to be filled up with people. People people people

So we are led through the mazes of tables, avoiding hot trays of food and escaped children running about and led to our seat. Now the dining area is separated into three sections, the hot area (which is by the kitchen grill and tries to imitate a volcano), the ocean aspect with giant jellyfish hanging from the ceiling. The wind is just gentle enough to make the tentacles move and float. The last area is the ice area which makes you feel like you're trapped in a giant ice glacier. We sat down at the glacier one, almost going into the ocean.

The aesthetics of this place is amazing. The only indication that this is a restaurant are the tables and waiters. The walls are made out of rocks or ice and the ceiling is either a night sky or floating with jellyfish. If you ever been to a Rainforest Cafe, it has the same wrap around atmosphere except on a grander scale. The ceilings are very high, creating the illusion of lots and lots of space. The only problem is it was too much of a distraction. Everywhere, something was happening. Something was moving, screaming, blinking, waving. It was difficult to keep up a conversation. Not to mention the high vaulted ceilings made everything echo so I had to practically yell to be heard just across the table.

The most frustrating thing was the lighting. The glacier section was encase with ice. So of course, this part would have a different lighting than the rest of the building. It was this dark blue like one you might find in the back room of a rave. It was hard to see the food and the person across from you. My brother joked about it, saying that it was kind of fun, trying to guess what food you just put in your mouth. I had a cheeseburger, which was huge but at least I could tell it was a cheeseburger. My brother had a pasta with peas and onions thrown in it. It just looked like an unappealing mess of blue with darker spots of blue. Not to mention the meteor showers around the whole building (similar to the thunderstorm at the Rainforest Cafe). Everything starts rumbling and the lights flash. The blue finally lights up to red right before sinking back into blue. At least then you get a few minutes to actually see what you're doing. It's one thing to have ambiance lighting. It is another thing when you can't even see your food.

This is my father sitting across from me. Nothing was changed at all. As well as no flash.

But you do get your money's worth and it is fun place to eat. I suggest waiting though at least for another year for it to calm down and be a little less crowded. And to not eat in the glacier section. The lighting everywhere else was perfectly fine. We just didn't have that great of seating.

So go hang out at DD. It's such an easier pace than going to one of the parks. And it's free too, if you don't buy anything.

Pixar's Heroes: An Overview

With the release of Pixar’s Up, I want to take a moment to go through the list of protagonists or “heroes” of each movie. It seems to me that with each Pixar movie, the protagonist becomes less and less heroic. Just for clarification, a protagonist does not always equal a hero and vice versa. A hero in a movie, in my mind, is someone who helps a larger group or at least other than him or herself, although there may be danger

Woody from Toy Story (1995)
I wouldn’t really call Woody the traditional epic hero. He helps other toys from Sid but that wasn’t the main focus of the movie. However, he did do heroic acts to save Buzz, but Buzz didn’t really risk anything. It was all Woody saving and rescuing, after his fit of jealousy. His heroics did not extend very far. He saved himself, he saved Buzz, and he saved a bunch of mangled toys from being more mangled. But of course he’s the hero, he’s a cowboy. He’s oozing with courage and wit. That’s what cowboys do. Just because he’s a toy doesn’t make him any less of a cowboy. So Pixar starts with a pretty generic hero, although he doesn’t really act like one.

Flik from A Bug’s Life (1998)
He’s ant, that’s a very unlikely hero. And not just an ant either, a nerdy, clumsy, awkward ant. But he makes a bigger contribution than Woody. He saves his whole colony. And he’s healthy and smart, although just an ant. Since everything is to his scale, he could be seen as a regular human, who has to worry about birds and rain….never mind. The point is that he’s still seen as a respectable hero. Now if Flik was in our world, then he would be seen as an even more unlikely hero. But he’s not so he’s a little less likely hero but still one.

After that movie is Toy Story 2 in 1999 but we already discussed it. Buzz is more of a hero in this one than in the previous one though. Woody is still my super hero though by risking himself to be shipped off to Japan to save Jessie. How romantic….

Sulley in Monsters, Inc. (2001)
We have Mike and Sulley. Of course these guys are going to be the heroes, Sulley is a giant blue monster. He is going to save the day. There isn’t a doubt in anybody’s head. And he does it with the help of Mike as the semi-loyal sidekick and saves Monstropolis and a cute little girl.

Marlin from Finding Nemo (2003)
Marlin is a neurotic fish with forgetful Dory; that makes one of the most unlikely pair ever. There is no way this guy is going to get his kid back. Yet he does and it makes it more powerful because, as strange as this is going to sound but, it makes it believable. We can see people like Marlin on the streets, who are overprotective of their kids and just want the best for them. So he’s a strange hero but he only helps Nemo and Dory out, not really anybody else so you could make the argument that he’s not a hero. And the neurotic dad is somewhat a common trope used so we move on.

The Incredibles in 2004 with Mr. Incredible. He’s a superhero, of course he’s going to succeed. Moving on.

Lightning McQueen from Cars (2006)
I don’t really count McQueen as the traditional hero, risking life and limb for others, etc. He’s never at risk or puts himself at risk for someone else. But I do like the ending when McQueen risks fame and fortune to help a fellow racer. In that sense, he’s a hero. So points for him. He’s still pretty heroic on his own.

Remy from Ratatouiile (2007)
This is where the decline of likely heroes begin. Before, we had cowboys, space rangers, cars, superheroes, and monsters as the hero. In this though, it’s a rat. It’s not to say that a rat is unlikely because of its stature or any physical limitations but because it’s a rat. Rats are not liked by many. While we look onto a beloved mouse with red shorts, the rat is sneered at and is repulsive. So Remy is unusual in this sense. But I can’t really call him a hero. Yes, he does risk his own life many times but it’s for his own benefit. He’s kinda selfish, pushing only to his goal to be a chef. While I don’t frown upon this, I can’t call him a hero either.

Wall-E from Wall-E (2008)
Here we have a very unlikely hero. He saves the human race, he counts as a hero. But he’s dirty, banged-up, clunky and cannot compare to the technology that we see on the Axiom. He is a complete contrast to Eve. He looks like he would fall apart any moment (and he does). But we cheer him on because we like the underdog

Carl Fredricksen from Up (2009)
I haven’t seen this so this is all prediction. I think Carl is the most unlikely hero imaginable. He is an old man that walks with a cane. How can this be a hero? He’s limited so physically. He could injure himself so easily or worse! And to add to that, his sidekick is a cubby boy-scout type. I want to see this movie just to see how they fare in a jungle with giant colorful birds and other dangers. I can’t think of a more unlikely hero than Carl.

Pixar picks their heroes so well. They do not rely on muscle and looks alone. Sometimes their heroes are filled with stuffing or gears. Pixar doesn’t try to make likable heroes. They try to make believable heroes. So sometimes they are neurotic, sometimes they make huge mistakes. Their heroes are not perfect, they are not the traditional sword-drawn, racing off to battle knights. They hesitate, they refuse, they are selfish. So it doesn’t matter if they are a bug, a toy, a fish, or a rat, we can still see us, the audience, through them. That is why I am so excited about Up. Because I will see a new side of human nature that has always been evident but never realized. I will see a hero form out of an old man and it will be more dramatic than seeing a already developed knight in shining armor.

The Scary Factor

I am a classic Disney fan. I like watching the oldies. Of course, I like watching the new stuff like Enchanted and I’m very excited about the Princess and the Frog, but the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana can take a hike. So I am sitting in my dorm room, discussing the DVD release of Pinocchio with my roommate (this was a while back, obviously). I was telling her about Jiminy Cricket, my favorite character of the movie (I promise, this will be a post). She told me that it scared her, even today. Reflecting on that comment, it is true, that movie is scary

The old Disney movies, even with Beauty and the Beast in 1991, had very scary scenes in it. Scenes that still scare me as an adult. I still get a little nervous during Fantasia on the last scene and I jump when the driver in Pinocchio smiles (Here's what I'm talking about). For that reason, I feel they were very powerful in storytelling. As a child, we couldn’t appreciate it but when we grow up and watch it as an adult, it holds our attention. We sense the danger. Even Cinderella had a scary moment, when her carriage is being chased down by the knights (I think this was a little on the unnecessary side). We are moved by it as movie-watchers. It is no longer just some children’s movie but a story that conveys emotion and makes us jump, as adults.

What spawned the scare? What made us jump out of our seats? The villain.

If we were to take most of the scary scene from the classic Disney movie, we can derive it from the villain. For a villain to work, he or she must not have any humor. They can have humorous sidekicks but the villains themselves have to be serious. They had to be evil! Or else the scare factor didn't work. There were no scary scenes in Hercules, (I might be willing to make an exception for the Hydra, if you're convincing) because Hades was a funny character. Yet, we felt at least a little trepidation when dealing with Anton Ego in Ratatouille because he was a serious character.

The scariness has gone away, at least the extreme kind when the shading is dark and mostly shadows and red eyes are used. Enter in, Beauty and the Beast. This was scary because for the first time, the villain isn't scary and the supposed hero is. Beast is frightening to children with his temper tantrums. Then after that, the scary element faded from existence from Disney movies. This could be that scary scenes don't sell or parents nowadays are too cautious with their children. Pixar on the other hand, isn't afraid to be afraid. I still get chills when I see Flik from A Bug's Life with a black eye and Hopper standing over him.

When it comes down to it, the villain has to be scary, or at least a threat to invoke fear. Of course what I fear now in Disney movies isn't what I was scared of as a child. But I'm sure if you mention a classic Disney movie, whether it be Pinocchio, Beauty and the Beast, or in my opinion, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, there will be a small shutter down someone's spine. It can't be helped. As much as we remember the fantastic and wonderful elements of the movie, we still can't shake the fear. Like eating tiny people in Cheerios. And that fear is a part of our childhood as much as the movie was.

Cinderella III: Not A Waste of Time

We all have had our experience with terrible Disney sequels. It's a rite of passage. We grow to love these characters then are horrified when they are mangled and practically destroyed in any attempt to continue the plot line. If you are like me, you cringe every time that you see a commercial for a sequel. For example, Race to Witch Mountain. When I reflect on the original Escape to Witch Mountain, I remember magical and fun characters with a riveting plot that was surprising. As I watch Dwayne Johnson drive a taxi of two alien kids to a mountain, I want to bury my head into the sand until the hype about the movie passes. If you are one of those people to point out the good Disney sequels, good for you. As a rule though, I assume it's going to be terrible until I see it.

Which is why I was surprised with Cinderella III, a Twist in Time. I stumbled upon it by accident while babysitting. The Disney Channel was on and was doing a movie marathon of Disney sequels with Peter Pan 2 (another blog, I assure you) and Cinderella. Cinderella III came on and the little girl wanted to watch it. So I took a breath and prepared myself for the horror that would ensue.

The second movie was terrible and I wasn't even able to sit through the whole thing. I had to turn it off. The third one was surprising because it wasn't terrible. It wasn't even decent. It was good. I am always hesitant of sequels of movies when it's been longer than 30 years. I believe if you didn't get an idea within the decade of the movie being released, then there is no reason for a sequel. Apparently some people don't believe this.

Cinderella III begins with the one year anniversary of Prince Charming and Cinderella. The stepmother, Lady Tremaine, and sisters, Anastasia and Drizella, have been forced to do chores. Anastasia stumbles upon the celebration of the couple with the Fairy Godmother, right as they are discussing how they first met at the ball. Anastasia overhears this and through the carelessness of the Fairy Godmother, comes into possession of the wand and turns the Fairy Godmother into stone. Lady Tremaine uses the wand to go back in time to the point when the Grand Duke comes with the glass slipper. Using magic, Lady Tremaine makes the glass slipper fit on Anastasia's giant foot and they are swept away to the castle, leaving Cinderella at the house. Using her wits and the help of her mice friends, she ends up in the castle but magic steps in again and wipes the memory of Prince Charming, despite Cinderella's pleading.

Spoiler: Through the power of love, Prince Charming falls in love with Cinderella all over again and Drizella and Lady Tremaine get what they deserve.

The interesting thing about this was Anastasia. She was not a bad character. She was well developed and wasn't the stereotypical evil stepsister we are familiar with in the first movie. I felt for her throughout the whole movie. I wanted her to get the prince and to tell Cinderella to go take a hike. She wasn't a gorgeous character like Cinderella (that requires eye color) but she wasn't ugly either. I'm sure a lot of girls could relate to Anastasia, wanting someone to like them for who they are.

The animation of this was amazing. The artists actually used previous models and had live actors in the studio to draw believable characters. And the music wasn't bad. Of course we had singing mice but what kind of Cinderella movie would this be without singing mice?

There was so much more personality in this! The Prince had a personality, Cinderella had a personality. Anastasia had a personality. It was fantastic. The Prince was lovestruck and wild-eyed, Cinderella was quick-witted and tenacious, Anastasia had good intentions but clumsy. And it wasn't about the mice. I hate those mice. I will continue to hate those mice. Their voices, their stupid shirts. But I digress.

The sidekicks didn't take over the picture. Yes, there were the funny antics but the main point was getting Cinderella and Prince Charming back together. I found more enjoyment wondering what Lady Tremaine would do to stop them. Then I grew excited to see how Cinderella would solve it. It kept me engaged and I didn't get bored. The two most important things about a movie. This movie moved Lady Tremaine up on my evil villain list three levels.

Did I mention this was actually funny? Yeah, I laughed. It was good. I'm not lying. I'm as shocked as you are. With Disney movies, they can be charming, but if they are trying to strike humor, sometimes they try too hard. Not in this case. The one liners just make me giggle.

Anastasia: This is the answer to all of our problems (holds up wand)

Lady Tremaine: A stick?

Drizella: Oo, let's beat her with it

If you are looking for magic in this one like in the first movie, you are out of luck. There is so much wand flinging, than when something magical and wonderful does happen, it's just lack lustered. It has the scene, like in the first movie, with Cinderella transforming from rags into her dress at the end of the film but it wasn't as magical and powerful as it was in the first movie. Maybe because it lacked the chorus but I just didn't care about the magic of the dress like I was suppose to. It had all the actions, like her hands rising up and the white swirls but I felt nothing. It honestly made me sad.*

Another unfortunate problem is the true love deal. Yes, I understand that it is Cinderella but I was beaten over the head with it. True love, true love. Everyone has a true love. You'll know it when you touch her hand, blah, blah, blah. It's tiresome. I wish they weren't so forceful with that idea because then when Prince Charming actually went back to Cinderella, it would make it so much more meaningful because we weren't killed with the phrase of true love earlier.

If you saw Cinderella II, I'm sorry. This makes up for it, I swear. It almost makes you forget that the terrible tape was ever created. So go watch it on youtube, go buy it. It's worth it for a Disney sequels. Of course, I don't expect you to replace the first one with this but this is good for being a third installment of Cinderella. I'm putting it on my Christmas list....or maybe just sticking to the Internet.

*That scene when Cinderella goes from rags to her ball gown in the first movie was Walt Disney's favorite scene of the whole movie

A Review of Bolt

I had the pleasure of seeing Disney's latest animated feature, Bolt in 3-D, completely free. With the economy today and being a college student, free stuff is good. Also, if it was bad, I wouldn't feel like I wasted my money. (This happens more often that I wish).

Bolt is the latest Disney animated feature about a Hollywood star named Bolt (John Travolta). He believes that the television show in which he plays a superdog with super speed, super strength, and super bark, is real. Penny (Miley Cyrus), his costar, wishes to treat him like a regular dog but the director and her agent refuse. To try to boost ratings, Penny is “kidnapped”, but Bolt takes it too far and escapes to try to rescue his person. Through an unseen event, he ends up in New York City where he meets up with a cat named Mittens and a hamster named Rhino and all three of them travel across the land to return back to Hollywood and to Bolt's owner.

The good news is I didn't walk out of the theater. The bad news is I had to suspend so much disbelief. In some Disney movies, you have to shut off your brain. This is one of them. And it was hard. It could be because I'm so much older than the aimed audience, but it bothered me how much I had to ignore. Not the dog crossing the land to return back to his owner, but the fact that the director and agent both tried to suppress Bolt into this fantasy to make his acting skills better. It was difficult for me. And of course, the whole fact that a dog, a cat, and a hamster got along but that is a bit easier to believe.

Another problem with this movie was the pacing. We can guess that at some important moment, Bolt realizes that he has no super powers, he feels depress and helpless, something happens that forces him to be a hero, despite not having powers, then ends happily. This is the expected. At least, this is what I expected. What I got was not this. Bolt goes from having super powers to realizing that he doesn't. There is no transition. He instantly accepts it. If I thought I had super powers all my life then suddenly not have them anymore, I would be a little more upset than just “oh, I have no powers, I still have to go save my friend though”. It emotionally didn't make sense. Although there was the big, “just because you have no powers doesn't mean you're helpless” speech, it went unheard by Bolt who had his own mental epiphany without telling anyone.

The 3-D aspect was interesting though. I say interesting because throughout the whole movie, I kept waiting for the overuse of the effect with things flying at me constantly but in all honestly, it wasn't abused. I barely remembered the 3-D aspect. It anything, it just enhanced the experience. All movies will probably use 3-D in the future and I hope they follow Bolt's example of not overusing it.

It was on the predicable side. I feel like this is an overdone idea. Someone plays a hero on television, believes that it is true, is forced into situations where it isn't true, has a big epiphany, and uses his own abilities to be a hero. This was Bolt completely with a little side story about Penny. But what was interesting was the fact that the moral of the story (which sometimes Disney bangs you over the head with) was hidden. Bolt was the hero at the end, but they weren't like “oh yay! You used your inner strength.” It was very subtle. And that made me walk out of the theater smiling.

This was funny too. I did laugh. It was humorous. It wasn't top notice humor. There were times when I laughed because I was suppose to laugh and not because I thought it was funny. This is one of those films that would be best to wait to rent. It's not terrible. It's not Cinderella II (different blog). But it's not a classic. I would rent it, test it out first or go to a dollar theater and see it. I was glad that I didn't have to spend ten dollars watching that film, no matter how cool those 3-D glasses were.

Sidekicks should be on the SIDE!

For Christmas, I had the pleasure of receiving Sleeping Beauty on DVD. I always loved this movie. It is such a visual piece. The artists for this movie took about six years, making it the longest animated movie that Disney ever made. When watching it, is obvious why it took so longs. Not only is it beautiful visually but the music was based off one of the greatest ballet composers, Tchaikovsky. Look up the Sleeping Beauty ballet on Youtube and you can see that the music between the two are inseparable at times. The reason the movie took so long to create was the art. Walt Disney wanted a “moving tapestry” so medieval art was used as inspiration for the movie. This is obvious in the beginning scene of the movie with everyone celebrating Aurora's birth in the street with bright colors and sharp shapes.

Going deeper into the story, it is beautiful but a big hole is missing. If I asked you what is Aurora like, could you tell me? You could tell me about her physical features, the gifts that the fairies gave her, but you couldn't tell me what she was like. The closest you could get would be describing a teenager in love. But that is so generic. Despite having a whole song sung just about her, the movie does not focus on Aurora herself but is geared towards the fairies. In other words, the sidekicks.

Yes, the three fairies. I'm sure you can tell me what they are like, all three of them. The three Disney princesses we are familiar with before Walt Disney's death, Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora, all had sidekicks that took up much of the film with silly antics, despite the princess's name in the title!

I have to give props to Sleeping Beauty though on plot. The plot moved! It separated from Snow White's dwarf antics of washing hands and Cinderella's mice trying to get food. There was not really any superfluous scenes, yes there was the whole seen preparing for Aurora's birthday with the color fight, but that was an important plot point since that was how Maleficent found Aurora in the first place. So it all was relevant oppose to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.*

Sidekicks seemed to suck the life of princesses. Which is why I disliked Cinderella. The mice overtook her rolein the movie. The only time I saw her in her true form was in Cinderella III but that is a different blog. It was the same genetic personality for Cinderella, Snow White, and Aurora: modest, polite, gentle, everything a princess should be. A perfect example of this same personality is Enchanted which gave me a good laugh because I saw the three original princesses in Giselle. So it seemed that all princesses were doomed to the two dimensional frame.

Then in 1989, we see a change and her name was Ariel from The Little Mermaid. Now the princess movie was actually about the princess. Not only that, but the control was put into the princess. Before, the princess lived then because of certain circumstances, they are put into danger and then rescued, all of it being out of their control. With Snow White, she was forced to run away and was protected by seven dwarfs. Aurora, she fell asleep and had to wait for someone else to save her. For the first time ever in a Disney movie, the princess took control. Ariel was the one that signed Ursula deal, she was the one that went off to search for her prince, she was the one that took affirmed action.

After that, came a wave of tough, determined, beautiful women with personality that would not fade away. Perhaps it was because the feminism movement in the 60's. And the sidekicks aren't the focus anymore. It is actually about the princess. Not to say that there weren't sidekicks. Jasmine had Rajah but he was only on screen for about ten minutes total. We got to know the princess, got to see them angry, and got to see them fight for their man. We even saw women that fought for no man or at least it wasn't the main focus, like Kida from Atlantis (she was a princess) and Mulan (not a princess).

Maybe I had to wait until Disney decides to vomit out a Sleeping Beauty sequel before seeing some personality in Aurora or decide to actually watch the movie shorts made for younger children. The art and the music is stunning in Sleeping Beauty, but if you want to see Aurora, look somewhere else because all you get is the generic princess.

*Random fact: On the original poster for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, “dwarves” was spelled “dwarfs” because the word, “dwarves” actually derives more from J.R. Tolkin's idea of dwarves. Both spellings are acceptable.

The Hunchback of Notra Dame

The Hunchback of Notre Dame- a novel by Victor Huge, but also a Disney movie from 1996. It's a pretty interesting watch, lots of symbolism and a very dark motif. Of course, compared to the novel, it's all sunshine and roses. 

I have seen the movie and read the abridged version of Victor Huge (I don't recommend it, every other chapter is about Paris's architecture, which gets boring really quickly). In any case, it's not a Disney movie. Let me tell you what happens in this novel, warning: it's a spoiler so just skip to the next paragraph. This spoiler can be applied to pretty much anything Victor Huge writes so if you ever plan reading him, this is the most important information. Everyone dies. Esmeralda is not saved by Quasimodo and Phoebes is definitely not the knight and shining armor. He's the only character that doesn't die!

So here's my question. Who came up to the Disney company and told the executives "I got a great idea for our next big hit. How about The Hunchback of Notre Dame?" We are well aware that Disney could have thought of something better.  Yet, they choose this dark tale to try to portray. We could argue that all the other stories that they have taken are actually much darker (Ariel cuts out her tongue in the real story, etc) Yet, they have been lost in translation. Unfortunately, Hugo's novel is recent enough to ask questions. 

Was this some man's attempt to bring classical literature to our little kiddies? In an age when all stories, even the most simplest ones (Horton Hears a Who) are being transversed onto the screen, do we really need that? I choose not to compare the novel and the movie since both are too different to compare. The theme of both of them are too different and when the theme of the book does not match the movie, then that movie has failed to reflect the intention of the author. And it doesn't. 

Don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorite Disney movies. Great actors, witty dialogue, classic Disney, despite what people may say and the gargoyle's name give tribune to Victor Huge himself. (Huge: the fat one and Victor, the skinny one, Laverne, the woman gargoyle, was named after one of the Andrews sister. I don't know why). But, it doesn't make up for the lack of despair and utter,  soul-crushing feeling that Victor Huge can convey. But I suppose a children's movie shouldn't be that depressing.

Sorry Disney, I don't know what you were trying to prove with Hunchback of Notre Dame. If it was trying to do a children's adaptation of it, then I wish you put my favorite characters in it, Gringorie, (poor sap, got caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time) and Jehan Frollo (he makes a perfect foil for his older brother). But I digress. If you want the true experience of Victor Hugo's intention, go read his book. The movie is a good, but can't compare the emotion conveyed in the novel.