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 – Conclusion
The Animation in Madeline is crap-poo. No, actually it’s worse. It’s not even bad enough to be delightful. No, it’s honest-to-god poo. But what makes it so bad besides every damn thing? Well, I will list three things because anymore analysis on this, is going to drive me to insanity.
#1 The Colors
Madeline, Pepito and her friends read Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Color design is dull. It tries to be bright and colorful but it meanders in the dull. Honestly I could take the colors as the tones aren’t awful and the gradient are ok but the dumb character design ruin it, which brings me to me second point;
#2 The Character Design
Ms. Cavell holding The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Character Designs are flat, uninteresting and dumb. Sure they look like the books but while the books were endearing the character look stupid. With their cold soul-less black dot eyes, their blocky bodies and there unvaried faces. They just look stupid in motion. Then we come to the problem real issue;
#3 The Laziness
Madeline or Pepito as Quasimodo
The animation in Madeline is abject, unfiltered, pure laziness. Anything that could be good and endearing is trashed by the immense awfulness of the animation. The character’s motion are stilted and awkward. The repeat animation is laughable. The use Pepito as Madeline in a long shot which make it a continuity error. I’m sure this show has a LOT of them. There are dozen upon dozen still frames to pad out the ghastly time. They also you a dissolve transition to get the girls to turn at the end while they are brushing their teeth. Also that is another continuity error since it has the girls in their “magnificent” day clothes but the shot before that they were in their nightgowns. So much laziness in this show.
Madeline and her dumb song
The animation in Madeline is one of it’s biggest failures. it hard to really get passed the crappy animation. I mean one could if the story and characters were interesting but they are not so the bad animation is really inexcusable. It really is just crap-poo.
Next time – The Moral of the Story
Pepito and Gerald Dippetty Doo