I'm Sad Frogerson.
Maybe they could still have Quasimodo talk with the gargoyles, but actually commit to the idea that he's just imagining them. He can have conversations with them, but they don't respond and stay as regular gargoyles. Make them kind of a Companion Cube for Quasi to confide in.
The gargoyles are conceptionally a good idea, the problem was the execution. They should be imaginary and they should be less funny and more, well, tragic.
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
So how is Honest John a gay stereotype?
"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
Maybe the archdeacon could even have a hand in helping raise him, while Frollo is out. On the other hand, that could mean cutting the gargoyles and having the archdeacon taking over their role. Maybe just have Quasi talk to the gargoyles and they are inanimate and he has even named them Laverne, Victor, and Hugo.
Disasturbator
It's probably his companion,added to the fact that he's literally a fox
New theme music also a box
Honest John is actually a Jewish stereotype...it's thankfully very toned down for the period when Pinocchio was made, so toned down that you won't notice it nowadays.
Disasturbator
how is he jewish stereotype?
Edited by Ultimatum on Jan 20th 2019 at 12:22:23 PM
New theme music also a box
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The clothing. There is this stereotype of the jewish business man, usually drawn with the kind of hat honest John wears, the gloves, well, the whole get-up. It isn't that obvious because the in his case the clothes don't look expensive but, well…
look at the picture under "greed" in this article...the German cartoon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Jews
And then take a good look at Honest John. He kind of looks like an animal version of the people in the picture.
But, as I said, it is very toned down, I doubt I would have noticed it if I hadn't known that particular picture. And you could chalk up to an accident, or some sort of cross pollution (in: They wanted him to draw like an untrustworthy businessman which just happened to looks similar to the drawing of Jews as untrustworthy businessmen). But when you consider when Pinocchio was made, well, I guess the animator dipped into familiar iconography. Especially since those are the same animators which were responsible for the Big Bad Wolf.
It is also toned down from the original story which played stereotypes up more. We spent maybe three weeks in a Children's Lit class in college on Pinochio alone.
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
If the animators had intended it you would have noticed it on the first go.
What you notice today and what was noticeable back then is not the same. I am BETTING that nowadays nobody thinks a lot about Jock hiding his bones in Lady and the Tramp. I am old enough to still remember that the thrifty Scott used to be a very popular stereotype...why do you think it is Scrooge Mc Duck?
unpaid intern of the stars
On the topic about live-action remakes, I admittedly can't say that I'm inherently against them. Unlike what seems to be a common opinion on websites, I really enjoyed the Jungle Book remake (although I'm speaking as someone who hasn't seen the original, so that probably destroyed any incoming credibility to some :v) and because of that I'm actually low-key excited to see the Lion King remake (aside from having Favreau working on that project, the original is still one of my absolute favorite animated films, so yeah).
I will say though that I think rather than focusing their effort on revisiting their touchstone classics everyone knows and almost everyone loves (and according to the consensus from hardcore fans, vainly retelling them in live-action), I'd rather see Disney put more effort into taking another stab with their more obscure and/or less acclaimed films. It would be really cool to them to go back and re-assess something like, say, The Black Cauldron, and transform a box office bomb that nearly killed the studio into a modern classic with the right talent.
Another thing is that they went from decently spacing them out, having one remake once a year as in 2015 and 2017 into now releasing three remakes in this one year alone. 2016 did have two remakes in one year with Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon, but that also leads to my other concern—those two films were at least decently spaced out, with the former in April and the latter in August. Dumbo, Aladdin, and TLK meanwhile are going to be released nearly back to back with the March / May / July releases currently assigned to them. You can even feel this in the marketing with TLK teaser coming out not long after the Aladdin teaser; and I think that decision in particular was what caused what I feel is a really pronounced online backlash towards these remakes that wasn't quite as pronounced before that point. (The issue on cramped schedules is also important because it's something Disney's film slate as a whole —animated films, live-action tentpoles/remakes, Marvel films, Star Wars films— have been seriously suffering from, their films are releasing so close they're starting to step on each other's toes—demographic differences be damned. There's arguably a half of their upcoming/planned films that could be pushed back one year.
has a clue, but it's usually not the correct one 0.55% of the time
Sure, but I actually think that the Jungle Book movie would have been even better if it had been less beholden to the animated version. For a more detailed explanation, see here:
https://swanpride3.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/double-take-the-jungle-book-1967-vs-2016/
I think I would mind the remakes less if they were more, well, fresh takes on the material. I really don't need the same movie in a lesser version as they did it with Beauty and the Beast and ´Cinderella.
Disasturbator
The animated version is their version so of course they're going to base it off something they already made,it's less of a risk that way.
New theme music also a box
It is still a pointless exercise if they don't bring anything new to the table.
Disasturbator
If were pointless they wouldn't be doing it,they're doing it because it's an established property with lots of recognition
New theme music also a box
It's creatively pointless. It naturally will make them a ton of money.
Well, they expanded the importance of the wolf tribe, cut out Shanti, and made it so that Mowgli was smarter than his cartoon version.
You know after Martin Luther King Day, I just realized something. Martin Luther King Jr. mentioned how his daughter wasn't able to go to an amusement park in their town because she was black. However, at the time Disneyland was non-segregated. It just makes me imagine what would have happened if Martin Luther King went to Disneyland with his family before Walt or him died. I mean just think about it. One of the biggest civil rights leaders could have gone to Disneyland and met Disney himself.
Interesting enough here is a picture of Martin Luther King the 3rd with his wife and daughter at Disneyland taking a picture of Princess Tiana.
Disasturbator
> One of the biggest civil rights leaders could have gone to Disneyland and met Disney himself.
I don't know what Disney thought of him but him meeting Martin would have made good publicity material
New theme music also a box
@Ultimatum
On opening day, Sammy Davis Jr was allowed to attend as a guest.I have a feeling that Disney if he allowed Martin Luther King and his family in that a lot of people would have targeted Walt for having someone so "controversial". There were no official segregation laws like in the South, but in California there were still bigoted people who wouldn't stand for someone like him. However, if Walt allowed him in then again as you said it would have been something big.
I know that Disneyland would have been farther away from the family and Martin was more focused on his campaign, but just imagine if he fulfilled Yolanda's wish of being able to go to an amusement park that didn't discriminated on her skin color.
https://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/3580
This is a review for that Fun Town amusement park he was talking in one of his speeches. It does sound fun from the sound of it, but I think taking his children to Disneyland would have blown that theme park.
Edited by firewriter on Jan 22nd 2019 at 2:35:28 AM
If it were modern day, I could see such a story being re-tweeted by Disney with the offer of an all-expense paid vacation to their resorts.
Not sure if they would ever accept such an offer but it would certainly be publicity.
https://the-disney-delete.tumblr.com/post/175373198447/muhammad-ali-at-disneyland-circa-1967-1970
Well, even though it was at the tail end of segregation, they did have Muhammed Ali at Disneyland. So, I could imagine that Walt could have seen an opportunity to get one of the biggest civil rights leaders to come to his park. I do wonder if the King family would have been offended by the fact the park had an Aunt Jermima Pancake house. On the other hand, Ali and Sammy Davis went there when it was still around.
http://duchessofdisneyland.com/park-history/aunt-jemima-pancake-house/
Edited by firewriter on Jan 22nd 2019 at 7:50:33 AM
The Unknown
Okay so super off-topic but Disneyland apparently has watermelon-flavored frozen lemonade. Why did I not know this?!? I need to try some when I go on my birthday in a couple months.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
I think the gargoyles could work, if you don't make them really freaking goofy like they are in the '96 version.
It's been 3000 years…