> > > Inspired by what? Certainly not Hugo....
> >
> > Does it have to be?
>
> In a breath: Yes. If it's CALLED "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," then I think it ought to be.

But that's so uninteresting. What's the point of a faithful movie version of a book? The book is always better. No movie can do justice to a classic book. So why bother with a movie that attempts no more than to recreate the book for the screen? (A movie could, however, potentially improve upon a flawed book, but that's not the situation in this case.) I'd much rather see someone adapt a book by using the book only as a boiler plate and doing something original with it.

But point taken about the choice of title. "The Hunchback" or "A Tale of Notre Dame" or some such might have been preferable, but in evaluating a work of narrative fiction the choice of title is rarely if ever a significant enough decision to hold much sway. The choice of title impacts audience expectation, but it doesn't really change the aesthetic merit of the film itself.