It’s by the same people who did The Legend of the Titanic, and BOY does it suck. SPOILER ALERT: Not only is EVERYONE spared by the adaptation (yes, even Frollo) , Phoebus and Fleur get turned into hunchbacks, Djali gets turned into a human girl for Gringoire to marry, and Quasimodo becomes handsome and Esmeralda marries him, while a redeemed Frollo performs the wedding ceremony.
I found the Dingo Studios version hilarious! Not in a good way…in an “oh my god this is so awful!” way. It made me laugh harder than I had laughed in ages when I first saw it.
But, even as bad as Dingo’s adaptation is, I say the Disney sequel is worse. The fact that Disney made the sequel makes no sense and it includes too much of the gargoyles. I can’t really find anything positive about the Disney sequel…it wasn’t hilariously bad…it wasn’t even jazzy and there were no CGI cats!!!
Disney’s Hunchback sequel does boast some of the vilest animation ever seen in a Disney production as well as some unmemorable songs and an unimpressive villain but, at least as far as I am concerned, as an overall animated work, it ranks much higher than the Dingo Pictures movie. The animation in the Dingo Pictures production is simply painful to watch. I could make several excuses for it based on the fact that it was probably produced on the budget of a doughnut but there have been other cheap Hunchback knock offs such as the Enchanted Tales and the Secret of the Hunchback where the animation may be poorly done but it is not *that* bad. Comparing the Disney sequel to the Dingo Pictures version almost makes the animation in the Disney sequel look like a passionate work of art . That is, it is still awful by Disney standards but it is eye-candy compared to the Dingo Pictures Hunchback movie, which, besides being hideous to look at, it is also unpleasant to listen to (at least the Disney sequel does have Tom Hulce and the rest of the original talented cast from the first movie as a consolation prize for those brave enough to watch it and I have to give them some credit for doing their best with the lines they were given in a hastily put-together screenplay ). In fact, the Disney sequel even has somewhat better animation than most other direct to video/DVD Hunchback knock-offs (but alas, only slightly better). So yes, while far from perfect, I would give the Disney sequel a 4 out of 10 which is preferable to the 1 out of 10 that I reserve for the Dingo Pictures Hunchback. For the Disney sequel I might have even made it a 5 out of 10 if it weren’t treating its young viewers as being incapable of processing what they watch (note to Disney: when the villain steals an enormous bell from the top of Notre Dame and transports it underground in a second, with the bell magically disappearing in front of everybody and somehow reappearing several metres below, it is useless trying to present it as a trick that could be logically explained because not only did the movie offer no satisfactory explanation as to how he did it but it also shows how lazy or uninterested the script-writers were).
Now, when it comes specifically to which of the two is a better *version* of the Hunchback of Notre Dame novel, the difference between The Dingo Pictures version and the Disney sequel is that the Disney sequel is technically not an adaptation of the Hunchback of Notre Dame novel at all; it is just a cartoon which uses the novel’s characters that appeared in the original HoND movie which was an adaptation of the novel on its own. The sequel continues from where the first movie ended and does not claim to have any connection to the novel besides the characters and the setting (so I am OK with the gargoyles appearing too much in it as there is not much dramatic tension to ruin and since it is a different story, I don’t mind what they do with these characters). Therefore, in my opinion at least, it does not count as a Hunchback of Notre Dame version (or at least I personally do not consider it to be). The same goes for other Disney sequels eg the Aladdin sequels and TV series: they are stories about Aladdin and his friends for certain but they are not adaptations of the “Aladdin†fairy tale, just as the Hobbit is not an adaptation of Lord of the Rings. Come to think of it, the same applies to the Magical Adventures of Quasimodo, which, besides being a TV series, it is not an adaptation of the novel either (so I was probably not fair when I said I consider it the second worst version in a post below); it just uses some of the characters and settings (perhaps a couple of plot points too but probably not enough to call it a loose adaptation as it is more of a fantasy series). There are other versions eg some of the direct to video Hunchback knock offs, which are hardly following the original text but they do tend to have a character named Quasimodo being in love with a gypsy heroine and there is usually a villain who is after the heroine too so they do resemble the novel’s plot in that sense.
Ironically, whereas the Disney sequel may not be regarded as a version of the novel, it is the original Disney version of Hunchback of Notre Dame that many reviewers have criticised negatively as an adaptation of the novel. Please don’t get me wrong, this Disney movie is my second favourite animated movie (right after The Lion King) but despite being a huge fan of the movie myself, I could not help agreeing with some of the criticism. When it comes to it as an animated movie, it does feature some gorgeous animation and awesome music, not to mention great voice acting but the plot could have been so much better if they had found the right tone for it. There are some very atmospheric moments that capture the mood of the novel and while some comedy is welcome here and there (the 1939 and 1923 versions had lots of funny moments and they are widely considered to be the best versions ever), the problem with the Disney version is that one dramatic moment is quickly replaced by kid-friendly slapstick and silliness, followed by more drama which quickly switches to more splapstick and so on. There was just little balance between sad/creepy moments and comic relief. I personally liked the changes they made especially when it comes to the character of Esmeralda (as I have always despised the heroine in the book whom I have always found dull and annoying) and Frollo works better for me as a judge since it makes him far more powerful than being a priest but several purists complained that the Disney version of Hunchback only uses the backbones of the novel and this makes it one of the least faithful adaptations around when compared to other major versions (the more sarcastic ones even go as far as saying that it would make Victor Hugo roll in his grave). Nevertheless, it is still a good animated movie to watch and this gives it points from me as a Hunchback version. Besides, those who complain or even refuse to watch it for not following the novel more closely and those who refrain from recommending it or acknowledging it as a Hunchback of Notre Dame version probably haven’t seen the 1997 version with Richard Harris as Frollo, which has a plot so irrelevant that if Victor Hugo had to choose between the Disney version and the 1997 version, he would have more likely answered: Disney version, merci beaucoup.
The absolutely worst version has to be “Hunchback of Notre Dame” by Dingo Pictures, a company infamous for making the worst possible knock offs ever (not just for Disney movies but also for Don Bluth, Dreamworks etc). The animation in this Hunchback version is so incredibly cheap that it looks as if it were done by children. One would think that those backgrounds have been taken straight out of a kid’s drawing book, after said kid was asked to draw pictures of 15th century Paris. As the work of a 7 year old, they would be OK. As the work of professional adult animators, it is substandard to say the least.
Clips of this abomination can be found on youtube and on the official site of Dingo Pictures.
Oh dear, as second worst, I should have mentioned “The Magical Adventures of Quasimodo” though I suppose that this may not have been on the list because it is a TV series and not a movie. It is still worse than any of the versions on the list because it is not a good idea to begin with. Some people (mostly kids) may have enjoyed some episodes I suppose but why some producer thought that Hunchback of Notre Dame is suitable for a Saturday morning cartoon series that the world would be looking forward to is beyond me.
OMG my bad for not including the Dingo version. That one is terrible. I guess my mind-set was version I have covered on the site or I’ve tried to repress it.
Loading ...
The Dingo Pictures version is the worst, but this one’s a close runner-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55qW04A6aFs
It’s by the same people who did The Legend of the Titanic, and BOY does it suck. SPOILER ALERT: Not only is EVERYONE spared by the adaptation (yes, even Frollo) , Phoebus and Fleur get turned into hunchbacks, Djali gets turned into a human girl for Gringoire to marry, and Quasimodo becomes handsome and Esmeralda marries him, while a redeemed Frollo performs the wedding ceremony.
That sounds like the most amazingly bad thing in the world. Thank you.
I found the Dingo Studios version hilarious! Not in a good way…in an “oh my god this is so awful!” way. It made me laugh harder than I had laughed in ages when I first saw it.
But, even as bad as Dingo’s adaptation is, I say the Disney sequel is worse. The fact that Disney made the sequel makes no sense and it includes too much of the gargoyles. I can’t really find anything positive about the Disney sequel…it wasn’t hilariously bad…it wasn’t even jazzy and there were no CGI cats!!!
Disney’s Hunchback sequel does boast some of the vilest animation ever seen in a Disney production as well as some unmemorable songs and an unimpressive villain but, at least as far as I am concerned, as an overall animated work, it ranks much higher than the Dingo Pictures movie. The animation in the Dingo Pictures production is simply painful to watch. I could make several excuses for it based on the fact that it was probably produced on the budget of a doughnut but there have been other cheap Hunchback knock offs such as the Enchanted Tales and the Secret of the Hunchback where the animation may be poorly done but it is not *that* bad. Comparing the Disney sequel to the Dingo Pictures version almost makes the animation in the Disney sequel look like a passionate work of art . That is, it is still awful by Disney standards but it is eye-candy compared to the Dingo Pictures Hunchback movie, which, besides being hideous to look at, it is also unpleasant to listen to (at least the Disney sequel does have Tom Hulce and the rest of the original talented cast from the first movie as a consolation prize for those brave enough to watch it and I have to give them some credit for doing their best with the lines they were given in a hastily put-together screenplay ). In fact, the Disney sequel even has somewhat better animation than most other direct to video/DVD Hunchback knock-offs (but alas, only slightly better). So yes, while far from perfect, I would give the Disney sequel a 4 out of 10 which is preferable to the 1 out of 10 that I reserve for the Dingo Pictures Hunchback. For the Disney sequel I might have even made it a 5 out of 10 if it weren’t treating its young viewers as being incapable of processing what they watch (note to Disney: when the villain steals an enormous bell from the top of Notre Dame and transports it underground in a second, with the bell magically disappearing in front of everybody and somehow reappearing several metres below, it is useless trying to present it as a trick that could be logically explained because not only did the movie offer no satisfactory explanation as to how he did it but it also shows how lazy or uninterested the script-writers were).
Now, when it comes specifically to which of the two is a better *version* of the Hunchback of Notre Dame novel, the difference between The Dingo Pictures version and the Disney sequel is that the Disney sequel is technically not an adaptation of the Hunchback of Notre Dame novel at all; it is just a cartoon which uses the novel’s characters that appeared in the original HoND movie which was an adaptation of the novel on its own. The sequel continues from where the first movie ended and does not claim to have any connection to the novel besides the characters and the setting (so I am OK with the gargoyles appearing too much in it as there is not much dramatic tension to ruin and since it is a different story, I don’t mind what they do with these characters). Therefore, in my opinion at least, it does not count as a Hunchback of Notre Dame version (or at least I personally do not consider it to be). The same goes for other Disney sequels eg the Aladdin sequels and TV series: they are stories about Aladdin and his friends for certain but they are not adaptations of the “Aladdin†fairy tale, just as the Hobbit is not an adaptation of Lord of the Rings. Come to think of it, the same applies to the Magical Adventures of Quasimodo, which, besides being a TV series, it is not an adaptation of the novel either (so I was probably not fair when I said I consider it the second worst version in a post below); it just uses some of the characters and settings (perhaps a couple of plot points too but probably not enough to call it a loose adaptation as it is more of a fantasy series). There are other versions eg some of the direct to video Hunchback knock offs, which are hardly following the original text but they do tend to have a character named Quasimodo being in love with a gypsy heroine and there is usually a villain who is after the heroine too so they do resemble the novel’s plot in that sense.
Ironically, whereas the Disney sequel may not be regarded as a version of the novel, it is the original Disney version of Hunchback of Notre Dame that many reviewers have criticised negatively as an adaptation of the novel. Please don’t get me wrong, this Disney movie is my second favourite animated movie (right after The Lion King) but despite being a huge fan of the movie myself, I could not help agreeing with some of the criticism. When it comes to it as an animated movie, it does feature some gorgeous animation and awesome music, not to mention great voice acting but the plot could have been so much better if they had found the right tone for it. There are some very atmospheric moments that capture the mood of the novel and while some comedy is welcome here and there (the 1939 and 1923 versions had lots of funny moments and they are widely considered to be the best versions ever), the problem with the Disney version is that one dramatic moment is quickly replaced by kid-friendly slapstick and silliness, followed by more drama which quickly switches to more splapstick and so on. There was just little balance between sad/creepy moments and comic relief. I personally liked the changes they made especially when it comes to the character of Esmeralda (as I have always despised the heroine in the book whom I have always found dull and annoying) and Frollo works better for me as a judge since it makes him far more powerful than being a priest but several purists complained that the Disney version of Hunchback only uses the backbones of the novel and this makes it one of the least faithful adaptations around when compared to other major versions (the more sarcastic ones even go as far as saying that it would make Victor Hugo roll in his grave). Nevertheless, it is still a good animated movie to watch and this gives it points from me as a Hunchback version. Besides, those who complain or even refuse to watch it for not following the novel more closely and those who refrain from recommending it or acknowledging it as a Hunchback of Notre Dame version probably haven’t seen the 1997 version with Richard Harris as Frollo, which has a plot so irrelevant that if Victor Hugo had to choose between the Disney version and the 1997 version, he would have more likely answered: Disney version, merci beaucoup.
The absolutely worst version has to be “Hunchback of Notre Dame” by Dingo Pictures, a company infamous for making the worst possible knock offs ever (not just for Disney movies but also for Don Bluth, Dreamworks etc). The animation in this Hunchback version is so incredibly cheap that it looks as if it were done by children. One would think that those backgrounds have been taken straight out of a kid’s drawing book, after said kid was asked to draw pictures of 15th century Paris. As the work of a 7 year old, they would be OK. As the work of professional adult animators, it is substandard to say the least.
Clips of this abomination can be found on youtube and on the official site of Dingo Pictures.
Oh dear, as second worst, I should have mentioned “The Magical Adventures of Quasimodo” though I suppose that this may not have been on the list because it is a TV series and not a movie. It is still worse than any of the versions on the list because it is not a good idea to begin with. Some people (mostly kids) may have enjoyed some episodes I suppose but why some producer thought that Hunchback of Notre Dame is suitable for a Saturday morning cartoon series that the world would be looking forward to is beyond me.
Dingo pictures anyone?
OMG my bad for not including the Dingo version. That one is terrible. I guess my mind-set was version I have covered on the site or I’ve tried to repress it.