Since it’s October and October means Halloween and Halloween means Pumpkins!
Here are some Hunchback of Notre Dame Pumpkins byFollow thehunchblog
Remember in Hunchback when we learned not to judge people? Well the Sequel’s plot is completely different it about how beauty is on the inside. The movie illustrates this with a bell that is jewel encrusted on the inside. Clearly the sequel was made by idiots for idiots.
So basically the movie starts as Quasimodo and Clopin are setting up for a Valentine knock-off called Jour d’amour (Day of Love). The centerpiece of the festival is a bell called La Fidèle. La Fidèle is the jewel encrusted bell on the inside (let the stupidness of that process). As the bell rings people declare their love by shouting their lovers’ name for everyone to hear. However Quasimodo is feeling sad that he doesn’t have a hot girlfriend. Quasmodo’s friends; Esmeralda, Phoebus, and their personality deficient son Zephyr, encourage Quasimodo that one day someone while see his inner beauty and find it attractive because Esmeralds did not.
Just then, the Circus de Anachronism erm.. Sarousch comes to town as part of the Festive. What a festival about love has to with the circus? Hell if I know. After Sarousch makes with an introduction which is ruin by his assistant being MIA, we’re introduced to his assistant Madeline. Madeline is pretty and that is Sarousch wants her to do but Madeline has a lofty ambition; Tightrope walking, however she has low self-esteem because she’s is pretty. Anyway Sarousch has a special job for her, he wants her to seduce the bell-ringer so he can steal the La Fidèle so he can be rich.
Madeline goes to Notre Dame and meets Quasimodo. Quasimodo hides but they share some laughs about some very stupid things. Quasimodo becomes smitten with her when she notices the gargoyles. However it all goes to hell when Madeline sees Quasimodo and runs off. Quasimodo is sad but then sings a dumb song about Miracles (which is more about nature) and he becomes hopeful and goes to the circus complete with some new duds.
At the circus Madeline tries to tell Sarousch that she doesn’t want anything to with the plan but Sarousch guilts her in to as he didn’t turn her in after she stole from him when she was six. Sarousch and Madeline then perform an illusion where they make an elephant disappear as Sarousch’s goons steal from the crowd.
After the trick Madeline stalks Quasimodo as he tells Zephyr that they’ll always be friends by means of another stupid song. Madeline finds this attractive and approaches Quasimodo. After some more laughing over more stupid things Quasimodo takes her to some of his favorite places in Paris. The date consists of botched souffle, rosemary and a creepy tower. They get caught in the rain and go back to Notre Dame to warm up and bond more.
Meanwhile Phoebus get swarmed with citizens complaining about a rash of thefts. Phoebus deduces that that the circus is behind it.
The next day Quasimodo seeks out Esmeralda as he not feeling well because he’s in love but Phoebus comes in and makes a jerk out himself and accuses the circus people for the robbery (which they are). Esmeralda is upset at him and Quasimodo defends Madeline. Phoebus then says that maybe she’s using Quasimodo. Quasimodo then demands Phoebus to find proof.
Madeline then refuses to help Sarousch any further with his plan but then he threatens Quasimodo so she agrees to lead Quasimodo away from Notre Dame so Sarousch can steal the bell. Phoebus then encounters Sarousch about the thefts and Sarousch blames it all on Madeline. As Sarousch goes to Notre Dame Zephyr follows him because he wants to join the circus.
So Sarousch steals the bell with the some technique he used in his vanishing elephant tricks (which makes no sense because they need a tunnel to pull of the trick and they’re in a bell tower of a cathedral), the gargoyles prove ineffectual and Zephyr follows Sarousch.
Meanwhile Quasimodo invites Madeline to go to the festival with him but she sort of declines as she hasn’t been honest. As she about to tell him, they hear a bell ringing and Quasimodo rushs back to the cathedral with Madeline in toe. When they get there some priest guy informs everyone that La Fidèle is gone. Quasimodo then blames Madeline for using him and Phoebus arrests her. Quasimodo starts to cry but hears the gargoyles and goes to them. Laverne tells him that Zephyr went after Sarousch.
Sarousch meanwhile in the sewer erm catacombs and discovers Djali and Zephyr. Djali escapes while Zephyr in his infinite wisdom tells Sarousch who is Daddy is. Esmeralda and Quasimodo tell Phoebus about Zephyr and Madeline tells them that Sarousch took the bell underground. Phoebus agrees to go into the catacombs but takes Madeline along.
So yeah, Phoebus encounters Sarousch, Sarousch uses Zephyr as levrage to get away but Madeline uses her tightrope walking to save Zephyr and Sarousch is arrested. La Fidèle is returned, they have their stupid festivel, Quasimodo gets his first kiss, and yada yada yada Quasimodo gets a himself a girlfriend. Gag.
Next Time – The old CharactersFollow thehunchblog
Disney started releasing Direct to video(DVD) movies in 1994 with The Return of Jafar. Disney continued to bastardized their theatrical releases till 2007 with a prequel to The Little Mermaid called Ariel’s Beginning. Since then they just release TinkerBell movies.
A handful of the film are decent but many are just crap including the March 19 2002 release of the sequel of The Hunchback of Notre Dame . It features some of the same characters (excluding Frollo because if got lucky and was killed off in the first film). Quasimodo, Clopin, Esmeralda, Phoebus, Djali, Achilles and the annoying ones are back in drab colors but with the original voice actors. There also three new dull as toast characters. Plus shit for music, art design and animation.
If you haven’t figured out it I think this movie is crap.
Next Time – The Crapastic PlotFollow thehunchblog
All in all Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame is good movie. Is it the best Hunchback adaptation? No, but it’s far from the worst. It’s kind of the worst of best and best of worst. I think when it comes down to it to fully appreciate this movie, just forget everything you know about the original novel. They are two different stories. The best thing about the Disney version is at least it introduced people to the story and gets people to want to read even if it just to find how divergent Disney is from Victor Hugo.
Another good point is Frollo, who is one the best Disney villain. The worst part are those horrible, insipid gargoyles. They were not funny and they were weak. But at least they are worst part that is associated with Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame. I mean it’s not like they did one of those Direct to DVD sequels with Hunchback. They gave the movie some dignity.
Damn. they did! Well it is Disney after all….
Next Time – Hunchback of Notre Dame II; The Quest for More Money or as my computer labels it “Tambourine”Follow thehunchblog
So as I’ve mentioned several times Disney takes older movies and re-makes them with their sacchrine Disney stamp. Aladdin is based off of the Theif of Baghdad 1924 and1940 and The Thief And The Cobbler. Beauty and the Beast based is off of La Belle et La Bete, though Belle is based off of Hepburn’s portayle of Jo from Little Women . And Be Our Guest uses Gustav Mahler’s Symphonie 3 First Movement for the melody. And of course Disney is based Hunchback off of the 1939 version of Hunchback of Notre Dame with slight hints made to the Lon Chaney version in 1923. However Disney will never admit to doing this instead they do the opposite. In the DVD audio commentary, Directors Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise and Producer Don Hahn basically criticize the 1939 version and the 1923 version. They claim that these two movies have made Quasimodo into a monster. While Lon Chaney’s version is consider to be horror, it is not, Chaney is not the horrific monster that commentary paints him as. And as Charles Laughton’s Quasimodo well Disney’s Quasimodo is far more monstrous.
It makes me more than a little angry that Disney uses these sources but in an commentary they debase them and then they discuss other movies that they took inspiration from Like King Kong and Singin’ in the Rain . They also mention Minster Toad’s Wide Ride and Fantasia in relation to Hellfire. It’s just annoying the way the directors and producer go on about how the brought a sense of humanity to Quasimodo that the old Hollywood failed to do.
Next Time – Conclusions
In Victor Hugo’s original book, Notre Dame is more than just a setting. Notre Dame was character and the whole of Quasimodo’s universe. Quasimodo’s existent was so much engrained in Notre Dame that Quasimodo was essentially its soul.
Disney’s representation of Notre Dame of Paris in very much in opposition to the book. In the Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame, it’s just a building and its’ role is more like a prison than a sanctuary. Frollo arranged baby Quasi to live in the bell tower where he can be “locked away where no one else can see.” Quasimodo then dreams of getting out of Notre dame. Now in the book Quasimodo loved Notre Dame he didn’t want to leave it, he loved it. Esmeralda also tells the Court of Miracles that Quasimodo “ helped her escape from the Cathedral”. Notre dame is pegged as something that has to be escaped because it’s a prison. Which is why it’s odd when Phoebus makes his speech about Frollo declaring war on Notre Dame. Frollo seems to be an agent working with Notre Dame to keep people in, so why do people want to defend it? I think it just Frollo-hate on the part of the Parisians, I mean he did burn the city. And when Quasimodo declares santaury for Esmeralda. The movie presents it as prison not sanctuary so why is it so great for Esmeralda to have sanctuary? Really, that climix is contrived when it you think about.
My guess is original text had an attack of Notre Dame where Quasimodo defends it and Esmeralda from misidentified attackers and pours molten lead out the gutters and Disney really wanted to do that shot and that’s why they had to do it. But Notre Dame’s status in the story got lost among the 18 story writers. That’s right, 18 people worked on the story, there are not even 18 characters. It’s a classic case of too many cooks in the kitchen. I think ultimately that the 18 writer are to blame for all the differences to characters and to plot and for making an important point of the book the role of Notre Dame from sanctuary to prison.
Next Time – Disney and the other movies associated with HunchbackFollow thehunchblog
It’s been awhile I made a Hunchback related item on Zazzle. but here is a new one
It’s Ironic because it’s on a shirt. Quote comes from the Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo.
And this is my hundredth post yay!
The Good Guys lives. Yeah, this isn’t a big differences. Most film adaptations let the leads live. It is interesting that Esmeralda is really only spared because she is sentence to burn instead of hanging. If she had hanged the scene would have been less dramtic. So another minor difference is all the fire imagery including Esmeralda on the stake. Also in letting the character live it takes away the theme of “Ananke” (simply meaning Death Destiny) Ananke is the word that book is based off of. However it’s only been features in like two adaptations and beside this movie is about how we “not to be deceived by appearances, for beauty is found within” no wait that’s Beauty and the Beast…. no it’s the same in Hunchback of the Notre Dame. Stupid Disney morals ruining their movies.
Another minor difference is the lack of Gringoire. Gringoire in the book was a cowardly poet who runs off with Djali. He also acts like a story teller and the voice of author. In Disney, Gringoire is divided between Clopin and Phoebus. It’s a minor difference because when it comes to cutting characters out Gringoire is seldom cut. Phoebus is the one to get diminished over Gringoire.
There is just so many differences between Disney and the book that to write these posts has been mind boggling. I could just have an entire blog about the differences and it would probably last a good long time. Because let’s face Disney didn’t re-tell Hugo’s story they retold the 1939 version. Then they got 18 people to collaborate on the story who may not have even seen the Charles Laughton version or read the book. This is why Esmeralda is impressed with Quasimodo’s space and not with Phoebus’ name (in the book she loved his name) , why Quasimodo builds models instead ringing his bells, and why Frollo is more obsessed with fire than Esmeralda. If you read the book and then watch the Disney you would know that this movie has very little in common with book. The only things that are correct are names and the settings. That’s it but in regards to the setting Disney may have got the place right but Notre Dame role in this movie is very much twisted.
Next Time -Disney’s Norte Dame Prison or Sanctuary?Follow thehunchblog
Here’s a picture of TinkerBell in Esmeralda’s costume. Consider it, TinkerBell cosplaying as Esmeralda for Halloween. It’s more Fan Coloring done by me. You want to post it, give the Hunchblog credit please ^^ Enjoy
For October I’m going to to post Halloween related Hunchback Fan-art, so if you got anyFollow thehunchblog
In all seriousness Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame really only has the basic premise of the original novel. All the characters differ in attitudes and backstorys. The way the story unfolds and comes to its conclusion is different because of the characters.
The biggest difference is the Characters;
In making Frollo a judge and not a priest we loss his turmoil which makes Frollo an interesting and complex character. I really don’t care as much about his lust and obsession for Esmeralda just because he hate Gypsies. Also in the book, his obsession occurs slowly. He sees her and is instantly taken by her youthful beauty. After that he begins stalking her and by kidnapping her he forces the the plot to take action. In the Disney movie, Quasimodo doesn’t have the some loyalty and Frollo abuses him by telling him he’s a monster and keeps him locked in the tower. In the book Frollo did no such thing and Quasimodo could leave Notre Dame if he wished.
Quasimodo in the Disney movie is very much like Ariel. He wants to live with the normal people. He is very naive, kind and gentle. In the book, Quasimodo is kind and loyal to those who have been kind to him i.e Frollo and Esmeralda. However, Quasimodo is also angry and doesn’t really like people. He would never want to leave Notre Dame as Notre Dame is his universe. He loves Notre Dame so much that he is very much a part of it and his lovers are bells. The relationship between Quasimodo and Notre Dame is destroyed in the Disney version as Notre Dame is not so much a sanctuary but a prison. Also in the movie Disney he briefly mentions the bell but you don’t get the sense that he loves the bells. I also don’t see this Quasimodo killing Frollo in fit of rage or lying down next to Esmeralda to die.
Esmeralda is the polar opposition between Disney movie and the book. In the book she is at least part French and is young, beautiful, naive, shallow, childish and kind of dumb. In the Disney movie, while she is beautiful, she has none of the other traits, though the youth is debatable. She is confident and is in control of her sexual appeal. In the Disney version she is a full Gypsy and we are never given any sense of her backstory. In the book she was unaware of her beauty and she lacks any worldliness. This naivety is what gets her into trouble in the book and ultimately is what kills her and not a passion for social justice.
Phoebus in the book is a jerk who is kind of dumb and just wants to sleep with pretty girls. Also he is two-timing cheat, who despite being engaged he tries sleeps with every good-looking girl he can. In the Disney version is he is noble, moral and likes to crack bad jokes. Not like book Phoebus at all.
Clopin in the book in the leader of the Court of Miracles, not the Gypsies. The Leader of the Gypsy in the book was the Duke of Egypt. Typically, the leader of the Court of Miracles and the Leader of the Gypsy get fused into one which is Clopin. That’s a minor issue. Compared to Frollo, Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus; Disney Clopin’s differences are not so bad. He tells stories like Gringoiore (a character in book) and is the leader of the Court of Miracles; he’s two characters in one, or three.
Djali in the Disney movie is a pretty minor character who doesn’t do anything other than add some charm and humor. In the book however Djali is pretty essential to the plot. Djali is the prime evidence for why Esmeralda is convicted of being a witch. Goats were considered to be representational of the devil and the tricks innocence tricks Djali performed like spelling and telling the time were thought to be the work of witchcraft by the judges in the book. Of course, since the plot veers so far the book it doesn’t really matter. Djali’s main function in the movie is a cute sidekick who sells toys to children.
The Gargoyles do not count, they’re not in the book.
It really does seems like someone early in production took the cliff notes of Hugo’s book, throw them into a blender, strained, added water and poured out the Disney Plot. Then that got re-written by those people who didn’t read. And the differences in the characters in proof that.
Next time – Minor Differences,Follow thehunchblog