Why didn't Hunchback of Notre Dame make it to Broadway? — Page 2

sephyr said: "I did enjoy the show as a whole. It was a nice time at the theater. However I think the lack of the three gargoyle trio kind of took it down a few steps for me. They provided the comic relief and a bit of heart as well, By having a gargoyle "choir" it made it less personal for Quazi and that close relationship was lost. I also felt like the end and all was sort of anticlimactic. These are fixable solutions and they could improve on it if they wanted to."

Oh my God THANK YOU! Literally no one else gets this. "They're too wacky!" "Pointlessly added for the kiddies!" "Disney just shoehorned them in so they could own a distinguishing element of the piece and sell some toys!" Number one, aside from some of their theater ventures, no one could ever accuse Disney of being bad at business; they saw an opportunity and they took it. Number two, in a story that's very heavy like this, one needs comic relief. And the worst part of losing Lapine's book is that he already fixed the tonal issue.

He altered their names, made them less wacky, and shaped them into playing a much more integral role in the story than just comic relief. Lapine's book and staging (in addition to talking to Quasimodo and bantering between themselves, they freely moved around when other characters were in the scene) more than subtly implied that they are figments of Quasimodo's imagination that he invented to help him cope with his loneliness, and, taking it a step further, that they represent the three areas of his subconscious: Victor (Charles in the Berlin stage version) is the sensible side, Hugo (Antoine in the stage version) is his impulsive side, and Laverne (Loni in the stage version) tries to make Quasimodo think for himself.

Besides, when people come right down to it, the truth is that they could live with toned-down versions of the gargoyles; they're just projecting their hatred of "A Guy Like You" onto these characters. And on film, I get it -- a musical number like "A Guy Like You" is totally out of place, coming as it does around the darkest point in the film. But the Berlin version made it work onstage for the same reason that "I Feel Pretty" works in Act Two of West Side Story where it might not have on film: on stage, it's one of the few bright spots in the show at that time, and it's far from totally inappropriate. I get not liking the lyrics (yes, the line about Paris being on fire is cringeworthy), but if anyone on this forum who isn't a Wicked fanatic can name the last new Stephen Schwartz lyric they completely liked, I'll let it go.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Updated On: 10/15/16 at 05:03 AM

Lolz somehow I didn't see that basically everyone else already said what I did, but moving on...



Scarywarhol....THAT. EVERYTHING you said. It's was just so uninspired. I'm aware I went in with sky high expectations, but when the film is such an already wonderfully working clock and has its own subtle darkness...why change what already works??? That's what bothered me, among many other things...I don't care if Scott is my favorite underdog composers' son, almost everything he's touched is NOT good...



im also appreciating these intelligent responses as to why this version just.doesnt.work. I'm still not understanding those who thought this final product was a masterpiece...HOWEVER considering those who I've come across who think this are mostly the average theatre goer or laymen :/ and I've Heard some of the regional productions have been better. Music Circus for one. From what I've been told the team there had license to change the script a bit and therefor some of it ended up being better. Lapine's Berlin book was just fine, I'm just so confused why the change...of course the "Disney just doing business" explanation is as good as any. Not that I like it, but...oh well.

Updated On: 10/15/16 at 10:04 AM

So annoying-going to be in Ft Lauderdale on Nov. 7th-one day after the performances end.

Not that I was dying to see this, but would have been fun.

AEA AGMA SM said: "JennH said: "And if Disney is worried about three or more shows running at once then why did they FIVE of their own stuff running at once back in the day??

Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Aida, Tarzan, and Little Mermaid were all running at once at one point. Tarzan's quick closing made this only about a three month span, but it did happen."



No, that didn't happen at all. Aida closed in 2004 (and was technically produced by Hyperion Theatricals, as they were aiming more for the adult audience). Tarzan opened in 2006 and closed in 2007, with Beauty and the Beast closing not even a month later. The Little Mermaid didn't open until 2008. So those five shows were never running all at once. At most they have had four shows running simultaneously, when you add in Mary Poppins.



"

Ah you're right, I checked and yeah I had my timelines crossed. I believe I was thinking of Mary Poppins. I just remember their website back then and it had those five listed at once but now that I rechecked that timeline, not all five were ACTUALLY running.

And as for the aesthetic of Aladdin/LK/Frozen all at once as someone mentioned...I kinda love it and am very much looking forward to it! Three completely different shows in three completely different global locales...nerdy as though it may sound, that's possibly my favorite part of it, Disneyfied though the locales may be.

kreichelt said: "JennH said: "those who I've come across who think this are mostly the average theatre goer or laymen :/ "

Not cool.



"

I should have clarified that I'm NOT knocking this at all. I appreciate the average theatre goer coming to see shows! Of course I am, it's their attendance that will determine how long a show can/will last! But many of my fellow audience members walked away from Hunchback singing its praises and I wondered why, but I also can explain why it wasn't...good. I'm just glad it exists at all on stage at this point. I apologize for that possible offense, I didn't not intend for it to be as such.