http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJCkYF7qQKY
As fan of Hellfire and the Phantom of the Opera this video fills me with joy. I also think that the Phantom is more like Frollo than Quasimodo but that is an article for another day.
This Post is result of Why did Hunchback Fail? The Conclusion of the conclusion of the Disney Version post where I asked people to choose some random Disney movie and pick you favorite character, to see if other protagonists are listed more favorable than Quasimodo. Anyway here are mine (movies came from the list of movie people chose plus one)
Hunchback – Djali or Clopin
I don’t want to choose between them so I won’t. Both of these characters are fun and charming.
Aladdin – Carpet
Much like Djali and Clopin, carpet is fun and charming. Also carpet is smart, laid-back, loyal and handsome (as far a carpets go).
Beauty and the Beast – Lumiere
I had a hard time choosing. I really enjoy Gaston and Le Fou but Lumiere is fun. I say he edges them out by a small margin though I’m not sure why, maybe I like over the top musical numbers.
The Lion King – Rafiki
Another Fun character, both smart and silly. Plus I liked it when he hit Simba on the head.
The Emperor’s New Groove -Yzma
What’s not to love? She’s a great fun villain. Gotta Love Eartha Kit in this. I also love Kronk, they play off each other well but Yzma edges out because she just reveals her schemes.
Bambi – Friend Owl
He’s grumpy and smart ^^ . I also like Flower, he’s adorable, soft-spoken, endearing and innocent that is until he gets Twitterpated.
The Sword in the Stone – Mad Madam Mim
She’s too delightful and Mad, and despite her limited screen time she’s the best part of this movie, that duel was awesome.
Hercules – Hades
I really like Hades as a villain, he cool and calulating, and that makes him fun as Hades ^_~ (bad joke).
101 Dalmatians – PUPPIES!
Except for the “badun” (Jasper & Horace), I actually like all the characters, but I’m a dog person so I’m just going to say Puppies ^^ though as a kid Penny and Lucky were my favorites.
Sleeping Beauty – Maleficent
She maybe not be a typical fun character but she is the one having fun being evil and I like that. Plus she’s super stylious.
Apparently I like the fun sidekicks and villains. Not a single protagonist. Perhaps Disney is better at creating villains and side-kicks. Maybe they try to hard to create likable protagoists that in the end they’re not really all that likable or interesting. Considering that people who responded didn’t list any protagonists either.
If you would like to list your Disney favorite characters from any Disney you want, please feel free, maybe you can defend the protagonists, I just ask that you please include the Hunchback.
I don’t think Disney denies knowledge of Hunchback like they do with the Black Cauldron it’s just very clear that from a business stand point that Hunchback didn’t make the money that Disney was used to after the Renaissance and so it gets looked over in favor of the cash-cows. But why did Hunchback fail to garner the reviews and money and is hence ignored? Well that is actually an easy question to answer, and it not so much the title translation it’s actually film history. You see the oldest surviving movies of Hunchback (the 1923 version and the 39 version
) were both star vehicles for the actors who played Quasimodo. As a result Quasimodo has been the coveted role in Hunchback, it something I like to call “The Quasimodo Factor©” (more on this later) . (Why do you think Josh Brolin
is playing Quasimodo, it’s because he a producer and chose to play him.) So as a Quasimodo has been pushed to the main character role even though he is not in the book.
I think this was Disney’s problem from the onset, they thought this film demanded Quasimodo and it didn’t matter how he was depicted. So Quasimodo with his sweet/bland personality was favored over the more interesting characters like Frollo, Clopin and Esmeralda.
I have to wonder that if Disney had made Frollo and Esmeralda the focus and put Quasimodo in a role where he was a minion and through some kind of exposure to Esmeralda is turned good if the movie who have done better. Was Disney too blindsided by Chaney and Laughton to see that it might have the Hunchback that bought down Notre Dame. I mean don’t get me wrong Disney was in a hard position with his one making an adult classic into a children-friendly film and I think for they did it worked, and I’m not bashing on Quasimodo but here is a challenge, list your favorite character from this movie and then list your favorite character from other Disney movies and see how often did you site the protagonist as being one of your top. I bet comparatively people like other disney protagonists over Quasimodo. So I think Quasimodo and the film revolving around him is the down fall and you can thank the 1939 version and the 1923 version for this.
Next Movie to be Reviewed – The 1923 Version Starring Lon Chaney….. oh….
*I’ll tell you what I’ll rank Disney characters too, leave a comment with 5-7 disney movies, can be any movie (not Oliver I haven’t seen it but anything else is fair game (I think)) if I don’t hear from people by the April 23th I’ll just choose at random. If in the event I get more comments I’ll pick the top 5-7 Disney movies that people picked Got it?
Here is an article posted back in January that I have been meaning to post http://disney.go.com/disneyinsider/part-of-the-magic/floyd-norman/?cmp=fb_dcom_ins_di_hunchbackofnotredame_0215_Extl/
It’s a bit of an inside look of what happened behind the scenes on the Disney version. Though in truth, most of this information was discussed on the DVD commentary, but it’s still a good read.
It seems that from the onset, this movie lived and could have died from how Hellfire was received from the higher-ups. The studio seemed to love the fact that the film was darkest and they had this complex villain and yet Disney just doesn’t real seem to care that much about this one. But why? I think the closing statement of this article puts it best “Although we may not have matched the numbers and reviews received by “The Lion King”, we created a darn good movie.” (i.e accolades and money).
Next Time – The Conclusion of the Conclusion of the Disney (although I’ll probably never be truly done with it… )
Today’s question is “How does Esmeralda have green eyes?” I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the Esmeralda in question is Disney Esmeralda, since she’s the only one with green eyes.
Also a Disclaimer, I have read the book, many many times. In the Book, Esmeralda has Black eyes. This question is about Disney Esmeralda, the book does not enter into this question except with regards to her name with her name.
Since this question is “How” which means “by what means” and since she is a cartoon this question is very simple; it’s green ink. But allow me to make yet another massive assumption, this question is actually a “why” question meaning “what reason for.” So let’s answer this new question, Why does Disney’s Esmeralda have green eyes?
I think the reason was to link the character to the name. In the book Esmeralda got her name because of an amulet she wears which is a pouch that has a paste emerald on it. It’s worth mentioning that Esmeralda in the book is rarely called “Esmeralda” it’s either “La Esmeralda” or something linked to her being a gypsy or a dancer. So the name is a title in someway. Now the in the disney movie, Esmeralda is a proper name and was given to her based on her eye color.
Now let’s ask one more question, is it possible for Esmeralda to even have this eye color. Well yes and no. No is the sense that this shade of green is not a natural eye color but it’s a Disney film so to hell with logic and the law of nature. And yes, given that the Romani (Gypsies) came out of Northern India, it’s possible, albeit quite rare. After all some of India’s top actresses have green or blue eyes like Rani Mukherjee (Golden- green) and Aiswariya Rai (blue).*
I mean without getting to a whole anthropological, genealogical, and tracking human migration patterns over the centuries discussion, let’s just say that this type of color is possible for a Romani and therefore it’s not impossible for Esmeralda. Though it inaccurate to the book where she has dark brown eyes but creative license and what not.
Please Note – This answer was not meant to be 100% serious, so relax. It was more about ink color and character design than about Genes and Hereditary patterns.
*Movie Recommendations with Rani Mukherjee and Aiswariya Rai (I’m a Bollywood fan ^_^)
Rani Mukherjee- Black, Paheli
,Dil Bole Hadippa
Aiswariya Rai- Devdas , Umrao Jaan
, Jodhaa Akbar
This movie has both actress through Rai is just a cameo. But It’s a funny movie.
Bunty Aur Babli
The stage show of Hunchback of Notre Dame at the Disney Parks is like a high school production where the show has a high budget but the cast isn’t really that talented. Wait a second that’s pretty much what this is. Expect they’re actually college students interning (slave labor) there for the summer. So what is the stage show about? All it is a rehashing of the movie. That’s it. I’m basing this review off these videos which you can watch it HERE. (I’m sorry for the pictures)
But is the show bad? Yes, yes it. Everything that you love is gone, i.e Frollo. Well that’s not true Frollo is there and he gets line or two but there is not grope and no Hellfire basically what makes Frollo a character is gone. Frollo is just a plot point. Also they kept a guy like you over hellfire which seems like a big “Fuck-you” to audience.
But how are the other actors? Umm, not so good. We’ll start with the best, Clopin at least he can sing well. Though he strikes the same pose and hand movements over and over.
Phoebus is meh. Quasimodo is forgettable. The gargoyles are annoying.
And then there is Esmeralda. First off I say this with out trying to be offensive but she sounds like she from a 30’s movies. Other than that her acting is weak and over-the-top and she’s not a great singer. I think she was cast for the splits she does during the dance.
And she wears knee pads during the dance which I found hilarious.
Frollo’s not even a character so he doesn’t count. But even still he’s WAY cooler even with no personality.
So the setting and the plot were okay. The whole puppet thing for the backstory was weird and a little silly. I mean I get why the did, because it’s Clopin’s puppet show, but to see a big Frollo puppet was too funny for me. I have a bad habit of laughing at puppet play even when that are suppose to be serious. Also Djali as a marionette was unnecessary. Actually Djali was unnecessary and that pains me to say.
Also I just want to mention that you know in “Out There” where the camera spins around Quasimodo while he’s on the spire yeah, they do that here except while the performer sings on a platform, two guys spin said platform around, it very silly and awkward.
Basically the whole thing a very rushed feeling and it over superficial, I mean it’s a appropriate, given that it’s in a Disney park. It’s flash and no substance. It subtracts too much from the movie and if their intent was to take that film and make it even more “Kid Friendly” why not do an after-story or sequel. Frollo doesn’t do anything cool here so who cares if he’s in the show. It at least could have been more interesting than seeing a water-down version of a classic story that Disney already watered down.
On the plus side, I liked the extras and the lead pouring was cool.