Today’s Fan-art is by spicysteweddemon. It’s Disney’s Esmeralda, Quasimodo and Djali. I love how fun and stylish it is.
On 2/12/12 Lindsay Ellis (Nostalgia Chick) released a list of the Top Ten Hottest Animated guy. The list was compiled with a survey she conducted on her Facebook page and Twitter with women writing in their top pick of the Hottest animated guy from 1995-2002. And the character that came at number 10 was Disney’s Frollo.
Now Ellis suggested that women prefer character to physical appearance. And these characters are usually “projects”, men women can change. And with the case of Frollo he is the most sexual overt Disney character and yet very put off by it, making him relatable and yet torture. But given the fact that he kills people he is also a bad boy. And the mere fact that people generally think that if Frollo could fulfill his sexual desire this would cure him of his obsession and genocidal tendencies, which wouldn’t happen but this adds to the sexual fantasy.
Now given that Frollo was the villain and villains are never meant to be attractive it’s interesting to mention that Frollo was the only villain to make this list. Maybe this is because of the Disney villains, he’s the most interesting and has the most characterization.
I do have to wonder if Disney had handle Phoebus’ character differently would be have made the list? Phoebus could have easily been a bad boy who gets reformed, I mean he did in the book. And given that women aren’t has put off by looks, if Quasimodo was more tormented could he have made the list? My guess, Phoebus yes but Quaismodo no. Disney would have never, never made him tortured, Quasimodo was suppose to be gentle, kind and innocence which are majors turns off. But it’s also might help that Frollo that he was in a power position, he can burned all of Paris and meets no opposition from anyone, except justice freaks Phoebus and Esmeralda.
Would I have sited Disney Frollo as one the “Hottest Animated Guys”? Gotta say no, I wouldn’t, I like him as a character but I don’t find him “Hot” at all.
Not that anyone at Thatguy needs me to drive traffic to them but here is the link to the video, you can find out who else is one the list and who is #1
I was doing some research at work a few days ago on Russian Animation and I found these pictures (which have nothing to do with Russian Animation.) In fact these pictures are concept art by Rowland B. Wilson. Wilson created production art for Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame as well as The Little Mermaid, Tarzan and Hercules.
Enjoy!
So in December 2011 Doug walker ( who plays the insanely Popular Internet Critic Character The Nostalgia Critic on That Guy With the Glasses) reviewed all the Disney Featured Films. And Since I have a Blog about the Hunchback of Notre Dame this gives me the right to do a review of a review, clique I know. So Here we go.
The first I noticed that either Walker hasn’t read the book or it’s been a while. First thing he claims the book is “Dark and Twisted.” Now I could I be the twisted one but I don’t find the book that dark or twisted. I mean I guess since main all the characters die and it has a tormented Priest as a main character this qualifies it as “dark” but there are darker books in the world. And dare I say there is a lot of humor. Maybe it’s because it a French story that the darker element stick out and it if were Russian it would fit in. Maybe it’s because people are inclined to thinking the book is of the Gothic Style, which it is not it’s actually Romantic. Anyway the Book will have it’s time here but I disagree with Walker, it’s comparatively darker than some Books but Twisted: No.
Another thing that made it clear he doesn’t recall the book is the mentioning of the crimes by Esmeralda and Quasimodo. He says that Quasimodo “accidently commits some sort of crime” and he claims that Esmeralda is not arrested for witchcraft. Quasimodo doesn’t accidently kidnapped Esmeralda, Frollo orders him to do it and he does no question. And Esmeralda 100% accused of witchcraft, there was a whole thing in the book where she accused of turning a coin in a dry leave and the tricks she taught Djali which are far more innocent than her trick in the Disney movie. Considering the Kidnapped attempt and Esmeralda’s trail are big portions of the plot I’m not going to let this generalization of Walker’s part go. But then again these scenes are not really in the Disney movie it’s a little forgivable.
Another slight problem with his fact checking is the Feast of Fools, Walker calls it a celebrations of Gypsy but the Feast of Fools was a Festival which akin to April’s Fool. Also he brings up some confusion on the way the Gypsy are portrayed. I think that in his thinking the Feast of Fool tripped him up in this explanation but when he says that Esmeralda say that they’re not all thieves but then there is the Court of Miracle where they keep there stolen stuff. However this a problem of making the Court of Miracles in a Gypsy haven which is not in either the book or actuality. In the book the Court of Miracles is where beggars and thieves lives and some Gypsy live there as well including Esmeralda. In actuality the Court of Miracles is the slums.
Walker is a fan of this movie however like me he did hate the Gargoyles. He bring up an interesting point about the Gargoyles being Judgmental and berating each others one looks, which goes against the point of the movie. Walker admits that he could have given the film credit if they were imaginary. The thing is they were supposed to be, if you listen to the commentary that’s what they strived for but they just forgot and there are too many inconsistencies. The film tried they just failed to make that aspect come out.
Walker likes the look of the movie, how grand everything looks and the shear scope. He likes both Frollo and Quasimodo but really didn’t mention the other character except the Gargoyles. He did mention Esmeralda and Phoebus’ romance being boring. He like Hellfire and The Bells of Notre Dame. He like that the film tackles the issues of faith, Good, Evil, Heaven, Hell and Lust. Which if you’re going to do Hunchback of Notre Dame you need to handle the lust, I mean that drives the plot.
Walker admits the film is clunky but on the whole he loves it. He can understand why it wasn’t a be hit and he admires it for the risks it took.
The thing about it is if you’re a fan of Hugo’s book, you can still like it, I think you just have to accept it as a different story, which it is. I’ve commented enough on this version (6 months) but it’s not a bad movie for what it is: a children’s version of Hunchback of Notre Dame, it works, so I agree with Walker, just wished his fact checking had been better. (Though I’m not a big fan of Quasimodo)
What else can I say about the sequel; it’s uninspired, mindless dibble that isn’t even good enough to baby-sit babies. It’s sole purpose way to get people to buy it, not to watch it but if people were to watch it, it was meant to show people that if you’re as ugly as Quasimodo, persistent enough and you say all the right things maybe you’ll the get the door mat who is right for you. Because this movie thinks everyone should be in pairs, even Achilles get some cheap floozy erm Filly at the end, Djali submits in to Hugo’s obsession, and there is “sexy” puppey show.
The real problem with this movie is it’s not bad enough to be good, it just exists in this realm of mediocrity. However there is one positive thing about this movie and that is an exchange between Victor, Hugo and Quasimodo and it’s funny.
Victor – “What does one wear to carnival event?”
Quasimodo – “Nothing”
Hugo – “Daring!”
That’s pretty much the highlight of the movie.
This isn’t a love story, it’s romantic superficiality wrap-up in blatant commercialism. It’s a horrible sequel and the people who made it should be ashamed that so many trees had to die for this piece of expleteive deleted.
Next Adapation: Der Glockner Von Notre Dame
In the case of Disney’s Hunchback sequel, this was Disney’s chance to give Quasimodo a love story as they didn’t in the original movie because Esmeralda and Phoebus are made for each other and pretty much the some person. However the whole plot with the bell was stupid. What Disney should have done was used the sequel to mitigate between the book and the movie instead of creating a villain who was pretty much universally despised by the masses, an idiotic impractical bell and not utilizing the more beloved main characters -Esmeralda, Clopin, and Djali.
Here what they should have done, since Disney is in the business of contrived romances we’ll keep the Madeline character but instead of working for a vain magical bell thief she’ll be in league with Gringoire whose is a poet and a goat thief. Gringoire is original to the book and he does steals/rescues Djali. But having Djali as a focal point it would have been easier to incorporate Esmeralda and Clopin. Plus Djali was a smart Goat who could spell, tell time and do numerous of other tricks, plus Disney could have marketed more Djali toys instead that stupid Bell. Plus there would have been no lame Sarousch or hopefully no Zephyr. (Did anyone like either of them? Seriously I wanna know.)
However, I think Disney should have forgone the whole Quasimodo story line and done a prequel with Esmeralda because I can tell you right know more people search for Esmeralda than Quasimodo, she is just more popular. I think an Esmeralda backstory who have been a better waste of time. Who agrees? I mean we know nothing of Esmeralda’s childhood, parents, how she came to the Court of Miracles, or anything. I guess this makes her mysterious but it would have been more interesting to watch than watching Quasimodo force a girl into liking him with a jewel-crusted bell that isn’t even in the first movie. An Esmeralda origin tale would have mitigated the Disney story of Hunchback and Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris, I mean Esmeralda is the titular character and the book revolves around her and Disney trying to downplay her in favor of Quasimodo just didn’t work. So they should have done a Prequel full of Esmeralda and not the sequel that they poop out.
Next Time – Conclusion Time for the Sequel
Quasimodo and Madeline are suppose to be two sides of the some coin. They both have the same up-bringing, raised by someone whose only motivation to do so was to use them in some way all the while being emotional abusive. The difference is Madeline is pretty and Quasimodo is not. However they are quite different, Madeline is ambitious as she wants to walk the tight tope and Quasimodo’s only real ambition is to be in a relationship, and that’a the MAJOR problem with this relationship.
Quasimodo will say and do anything to get Madeline to like him. Really, he would have done the same thing with Esmeralda. But this blatant desire for a relationship makes Quasimodo creepy and he completely rushes the relationship. I think the movie spans like two days. Quasimodo pursues her like she the last chopper out of Nam and tries to convince her that he is beautiful on the inside. In fact that is what their whole first date is about, how Quasimodo is awesome and shame on her for judging him. However Quasimodo is just as guilty of judging people on their looks. He claims that he think there more to her but he comments on her looks. And Madeline is no innocent player either, she is using Quasimodo. First, because she has to as her boss wants the stupid bell but she also uses him as source of both redemption and self-worth. Both are bad things to use other people for.
As far as a love story goes, it’s a horrible one. Quasimodo manipulates a girl with low-esteem into believing that they’re in love. He tells her that thinks “there is more more to her” but what Quasimodo thinks this “something more” is, is not known. It really just seems that Quasimodo just says whatever it is that people want to hear (Frollo’s Training). Had he said what it was that he saw in her beyond her face it would have given the love story more depth. As a result of bad writing, this love story is weak and shallow. Quasimodo says the right thing to hook the girl and is blessed that she is dumb enough not to ask for any follow-up questions about said deeper attributes (though I sure if Quasimodo had any they would have been wholesome – perverts). And on Madeline’s end, she thinks she found someone who think she is more than a pretty face, too bad she is wrong though.
The reason for this film’s existent is to give Quasimodo a love story and the love they gave him is shallow, empty, and hollow, which make the this movie worthless.
Next Time – What the Disney Corporation should have done with a sequel to Hunchback, but before that a special article, an interlude if you will.
The Music in the Hunchback Sequel is bad but it’s not the worse aspect. The worse aspect is the animation and the art style. Everything is lackluster from the colors, to characters’ movements and looks. Even the in-between animation, which typically isn’t supposed to be anything spectacular, makes the characters either look deformed or derpy (pardon the meme). It all seems like there was no joy in this project on the part of the animators, like it was something they did because they had.
Sequel in-between frames
VS.
Original in-between frame
The movie was animated by Walt Disney Animation (Japan). And as it happen that Disney Japan expertise lies in there action scenes, which is an odd pairing seeing how the climax of this movie is a woman picking up a child. No battles, no fights. No wonder the animators appear not to interested in this project, they probably wanted to get it over and done with.
I think the animation is one of the biggest problems with this movie along with many of the other Direct to release Disney movies. If a movie is terrible you can forgive it if it’s pretty, but if it lacks any redeemable qualities how can people like it? Actually there is a question, Does the Sequel have any redeemable qualities that makes it enjoyable? People may argue Quasimodo and Madeline finding love, but is the love interesting and good?
Next Time -Let’s answer that question. L’histoire d’amour de Quasimodo et de Madeline
Special Bonus Picture;
This is joke, Yoko and Ono are common Japanese names…just thought it was a little funny that a Yoko Ono worked on the movie.
I saw it and as a fan of Little Kuriboh’s Yu-gi-Oh the Abridged Series I had no chose to feature it. It’s awesome! ^^
Artwork by ARCatSK






































































