From the Dingo version, to Jetlag, to the 1977 version and the 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, accuracy to the novel and straight-up lazy execution go hand in hand. It’s insulting to the Hunchback story but it makes sense.
If the people in charged are not putting any effort in to the look and feel of the movie why should they put effort in the script? Adherence to the original content is not a bold move and not for the respect or love of the source material. It’s done because no one cares on the production and following the story closely is easier than thinking about a decent adaptation for a visual medium.
It’s sad and insulting that some of the most faithful versions of Hunchback are lazy pieces of shit. This of course isn’t always the case (Notre Dame de Paris) but it’s par for the course you can either have a good movie that looks like the production team was trying but the story is messed up or a version where hardly an effort was made and it looks like crap but they followed the novel.
Is the 1986 version the worst and laziest version? No and no, while I don’t think the company did put much of an effort into the 1986 version the Dingo is far and away much lazier and Enchanted Tales and Secret of the Hunchback are most contestable versions. The 1986 has moments but it is lazy and adherence to the novel while it could be considered a plus in its favor, it is just part of the laziness memo.
Next Time – ConclusionFollow thehunchblog