1986 | The Hunchblog of Notre Dame

24Jan 2017

Burbank Vs Burbank

by jess

Quasimodo

There are TWO Burbank versions of Hunchback of Notre Dame. Burbank was an animation studio in Australia. It started in 1982 under the name Burbank Films studios. In 1991 the studio was restructured and became known as Burbank Animation Studios. It stopped making animated movies in 2002 but is currently does Tv shows like Roddy the Rooster (2016).

Esmeralda and Quasimodo,

Burbank made one Hunchback in 1986 and then made the second one in 1996. The only reason why Hunchback got two versiona is because of Disney. The first wave of Burbank movies were literary influenced children videos. They were all adaptations of books whereas the second way were all Disney knock-offs which explain much.

Esmeralda and Quasimodo at the Pillory

The 1986 version for what it is does follows the book fairly closely. It also doesn’t insult your intelligence with its dialogue. It seems to have a respect for the source material even if there wasn’t much a of a budget.

Esmeralda, Quasimodo and Phoebus

The 1996 version was trash. There is nothing in it worth noting or is memorable. It’s not even bad in that “so bad it’s good” way. It’s just inoffensive litter. Maybe the only thing worth saying is that it followed the 1939 version with a slight nod to the 1923 version but that’s it. And I have said that NUMEROUS times so instead let’s just quickly compare the two. If I miss anything share in the comments.

The 86 version has a red tone whereas the 96 is more brown.
86 Esmeralda wears yellow and red and 96 Esmeralda wears white and purple with a touch of teal.
Both versions of Frollo wear red but the 86 version is still a priest whereas 96 is a public official.
There is no official Gringoire in the 96 version
Both versions have Esmeralda and Phoebus as pairing but the 96 verison makes them more of a couple in love.
There is no king in 86 version.
The 86 uses English accents and the 96 use French accents.
There is no Djali in the 96 version
86 Quasimodo has more lines and sentences than the 96 version of Quasimodo, even though both versions are deaf.
No version has a proper Feast of Fools. The 86 version just bypasses a celebration and the 96 unapologetically has New Year’s 1600.

Esmeralda 1986 Hunchback Notre Dame picture image

1986 Esmeralda

I just want to add that the 86 version gives Esmeralda amazing cheekbones. I’m sure I missed stuff.

30Dec 2014

Mini Look Back of Hunchback versions that were reviewed in 2014

by jess

Since this is the very last Tuesday of 2014, I thought I would do a mini look back and see what version was the best and which was the worst. This past year we have looked at like 3 versions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The 1986 version, the Enchanted Tales version and the 1997 version. Technically we touched on the lost films back in January but since I can’t even pretend I watched them they don’t count toward reviews.

Melody

The worst version is without a doubt the Enchanted Tales version. A handsome Quasimodo and a terrible moral, yuck. But you know I could deal with the handsome Quasi and the perplexing moral if the animation and songs were decent and not a painful bowel movement but alas this version says fuck good anything. I will say that this versions was my favorite to tear a part because that is the only thing it has going for it. Also this version was technically the first hunchback version I got screen caps for back in October of 2010, two months before the blog launched. I actually have more pictures that I didn’t use.

Esmeralda Dancing

For best version of this year, that is hard one as we only have the 1986 and the 1997 versions left.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Both versions have their strengths and weaknesses. If I were to judge solely on keeping to the book, I would say the 1986 version is better but if I going on what is debatably the more entertaining movie, I would say the 1997 version. It just so hard because both films’ flaws are so apparent that it’s hard to overlook them but I will say the 1997 version is marginal better.

I can’t wait for 2015! I hope to look at some famous/infamous versions.

11Nov 2014

1986 version Conclusion

by jess

Frollo

While I have bashed the 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, calling it a lazy, uninspired mess with cheap knock-off characters set in tones of soul-crushing dullness, I didn’t hate it.

Esmeralda and Gringoire

At best it’s watchable which is more than I can say for the Dingo version or the Enchanted tales version which one can only watch because they are so bad you can’t look away. The 1986 version isn’t so bad it’s good it’s just meh. Which considering the amount of laziness half-ass workmanship that went into this version, meh is high praise.

Next Version- Unknown

Djali

04Nov 2014

1986 Hunchback- Laziness & Adherence to the Novel

by jess

Frollo

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.

Quasimodo

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.

1986 Esmeralda

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.

Gringoire

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

Frollo

28Oct 2014

1986 Animation; So Lifeless it sucks the life right out of your eyes

by jess

Quasimodo

What can you say about the animation in the 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, it’s bad. Much like the character design it’s dull and uninspired.

Esmeralda Dancing

The first scene is this cool moody shot of Quasimoodo with gargoyles and if the rest of the movie followed in vein of cool gothic-ness it would have been awesome but since we have already discuss that Burbank Films Australia was about efficiency than style, the look of the thing is dashed in less than a minute when we see Esmeralda awkwardly twirling in warm yet dull colors. The colors design in this was just a bad choice, nothing is vibrate or alive, it just looks lifeless.

Quasimodo

Another factor of efficient style is the lack of full-legenth shots and movement. Most of the movie is taken in the 3/4 shots or close up. The staging and composition of scenes just get boring as it’s typically one character talking insolation in a 3/4 shot to another character in a 3/4 shot.

Frollo

I will say that this version is less unabashed in laziness than the Enchanted Tales version but I think it was far less ambitious, in that way I respect this version more. Oh, it has its methods for padding things out, like letting 48 frames go by of nothing, just stillness, periodically throughout the movie.

Gringoire

I feel like a broken record saying that the execution on this movie’s animation is dull and boring but that the truth of it. If the animation was even slightly better this would be held in higher esteem but the real sad truth of the matter if they had put any more effort in to this movie they wouldn’t have had follow the book as faithfully as the did.

Next time- Accuracy and Laziness

Esmeralda and Quasimodo at the Pillory

21Oct 2014

1986 Character Design; Shaggy is that You?

by jess

1986 Esmeralda

The character design in the 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame looks like Scooby Doo knock-off, we all know it and we all think it.

Scooby Doo Characters

They have the same basic look with the same black soulless eyes that are the same basic shapes as the Scooby Doo Characters. Esmeralda has Daphne-like eyes and everyone has the same shape But why is that? Did Scooby Doo and this version of the Hunchback have the same person in common? That was my thought because they look too damn similar but no, they don’t have anyone in common.

Gringoire

Scooby Doo was done by Hanna Barbera and started in 1969. The 1986 version of Hunchback was done by Burbank Films Australia. The animation directors were Warwick Gilbert and Geoff Collins. Both of them have worked for Disney, Gilbert worked on some the TV shows and the sequel movies (shudders) and Collins does timing stuff including the timing on the Disney Version of Hunchback. So they are not to blame for the look. The story broad artist was Richard Slapczynski but again he doesn’t seem like he was reasonable for the Scooby look. I can’t find some one to blame but it’s not a question of who but what.

Esmeralda and Gringoire

Burbank Films Australia is to blame! They began in 1982 and they just made TV movies and directed-to-video animated movies based on classic literature and stories. 1986 was a busy year from them as the churned out seven movies that year, Hunchback was their second of the year after The Three Musketeers. Also this movie debuted on TV. They clearly made their films as quickly as they could so the animation and character design suffered a lot not to mention the story and script, this is making sense now. The style may have been influenced by Scooby Doo as it’s very popular but it was probably for more for efficiency sake than artistic intent.

1986 Quasimodo

As it stands the character design is bland and uninspired. They look very simple and anything interesting about them is just baffling, like Frollo in red. Why? Much like their personalities their looks are watered down and boring.

I will give it a little credit, they make the character look like the character they are depicting. It’s not a great compliment, but Esmeralda and Phoebus are pretty, Gringoire looks like a hapless wimp, Frollo is austere if still in red, Quasimodo has a kindly expression and Clopin fits the part, remember in the Jetlag version when Clopin looked like a monster. It’s a small thing that the design for the characters but in this sort of movie made by company that just spat out movies one after after another, it’s something but then again you except characters to look the original characters so it’s really not much of a compliment.

Clopin with thin legged extras

And when you really compare Scooby Doo and this version, the similarities are only in the eyes and faces. The Scooby Doo characters have more variety of shapes to their bodies. The characters in the 1986 Hunchback have thin stick-legs legs and larger torso. There is some variation but that is pretty much the going look of the characters.

Frollo

If Burbank Films Australia put more time into the execution of the character designs it would have been so much better then again if they had tried in any aspect of the film it would have been better and we would have had a great animated adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame instead just the simple utilitarian version that this movie is.

Next Time – The Animation……….. -_-

Esmeralda Dancing

14Oct 2014

1986 voice acting; I didn’t hate it

by jess

Quasimodo

I have been bitching about the characters in the 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame for a few weeks and before I start bitching about the real main problem with the 1986 version, I wanted to talk about a slight positive; the voice acting.

Esmeralda and Gringoire

The voice acting on the whole is okay. I hesitate to call it good but condone an okay. I think the voice actors do a good job with the material they are given. I mean they aren’t given a masterful script by any means, they really don’t have much to work with.

1986 Esmeralda

Each actor pretty much gets their character. I would say that Esmeralda sounds older than she should but she has a fairly soft voice. Phoebus is not memorable but he he’s just relegated to being handsome so who really cares. I also like Gringoire kind of like whiney moaning voice.

Frollo

Even the British accents but the don’t bother me. I mean half the time they use British actors for at least Frollo. Also considering this is an Australian production, British is not too far off.

Phoebus

While I don’t think this piece is a masterwork of voice acting I think all things considered in this version the voice acting is fine.

Next Time – The Character Designs, you KNOW what they look like

Frollo

07Oct 2014

The Other Characters in 1986; Because they are there

by jess

By now you should know that the characters in the 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame are not rich, complex or by any means interesting and that’s just main characters who get screen time and apparent motivations. Considering this version misses with the main characters. the minor characters don’t have a snow flake’s chance in hell to be interesting and yet they do as result weird writing.

Phoebus

1986 Phoebus

Phoebus in gets the most important role of the minor characters. He does his Phoebus duties of saving Esmeralda, getting stab and conveniently not saying anything about not dying.

It weird that Phoebus didn’t say anything when he walked by as Esmeralda is about to die only to clear the air at the end. It also seems like he was sincere about Esmeralda unlike book Phoebus.

Did he just notice her execution or her trial? I find that hard to believe but it was convenient because Quasimodo has to save her. It’s just a head scratcher. I wish this Phoebus had more of a character then being a plot point because the bad writing could have made him interesting.

Gringoire

1986 Gringoire

He whines and marries Esmeralda and is bummed that she doesn’t like him. I don’t think he adds anything. Well strictly speaking he tells Frollo about Esmeralda and Phoebus’ meeting but really, Frollo could have overheard that just as easily. And Gringoire is not even shown after that point anyway.

Djali

1986 Djali

Djali is considered Esmeralda’s double but not here as Esmeralda herself calls Djali a “dirty little beast” in fact that is her first line, Djali misses the marks as they depict her as brown and not white with glided horns. Other than that Djali does her tricks and gets Esmeralda in trouble.

Clopin

1986 Clopin

Clopin is ONLY in the Court of Miracles scene. So because he is self-contain scene that they place straight to the book, it a decent short depiction that doesn’t get muddled. Best depiction in the 1986 version!

Next Time – The Voice Acting

1986 Esmeralda

30Sep 2014

1986 Frollo – Diet Dr.Frollo

by jess

Frollo

To be perfectly honest, I could have just had one post on the characters from the 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame as there is just not that much to the main characters and even less to side characters. However for whatever reason, I really just wanted to discuss this Frollo.

Frollo

This Frollo isn’t exactly interesting, I mean he’s a pale intimation of book and even the Disney version but this Frollo navigates the thin line that kid movies Frollo must walk. The line between obession, lust and being “kid-friendly.” Disney Frollo got any with this because in addition to wanting to bone Esmeralda he covered it by being mad at her and that is what the 1986 Frollo does except he is not as explicit in his desires as the Disney verion.

Frollo

So unlike the Disney version, the 1986 version is a priest which is probably why he is less direct about his wants as with a priest they need to tone it down. Pious Judges can get away with a bit more. Also like in the book, 86 Frollo has his creepy cell, though in this version it’s underground like in a crypt. Ok… that’s a weird change but whatever at least he has one. But unlike other Frollos the most specific this Frollo gets with his desire towards Esmeralda is that she fills him with dreams and makes him feel things.

Frollo & Esmeralda

What these dreams and feelings are we don’t know. I assume they are romantic-ish……. romantic is odd word for Frollo but I just don’t get the crazed madding lust from this version. I get he is annoyed with her but in any case it’s very toned down.

Esmeralda and Frollo, sort of the Red Door scene

Frollo wants her in his care but what that entails for this Frollo is a mystery. I’m not sure if he wants teach her religion or have sex with her. Actually he wants her to repent and accept his guidance, which is a boring motivation for a Frollo. No lust, no torment, no interest.

Frollo

In addition to being a sort of Diet version Frollo, this Frollo like spout off exposition because someone has to do it. He lets us know that Quasimodo is deaf but the most awkward one is when him is cursing Quasimodo while he saving Esmeralda. He says something like “curse the deformed monstrosity I adopted and raised all these years.” Prior to that we didn’t know the nature of their relationship. It’s weird for it to come out more than half way through the movie but at least they mentioned it, I guess.

Frollo

The real head scratcher, at least for me, is that he wears red. Why? Oddly, he’s not the only Frollo to wear red, the Dingo version also has red-cladded Frollo. Siting the Dingo version is not high praise. Frollo wears black, that his character, the end.

Frollo

It is sort of interesting to see a water-down, “kid- friendly,” diet Frollo who follows the book for most of the part minus all the depressing stuff. Though this Frollo missed the mark of being interesting as character. And why Red? Come on! Why does Hunchback try to make me hate red, I don’t.

Next Time – The Others

Clopin

23Sep 2014

1986 Quasimodo – The Sweetest Quasi Ever

by jess

1986 Quasimodo

The 1986 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame of Quasimodo is, umm, well, there? What do I mean by that? Well outside of the fact that he basically Charles Laughton sans the meager edge he had in kidnap attempt, he is just a representation of Quasimodo.

Quasimodo and Frollo

He does all the Quasimodo things; He is Frollo’s minion, he’s deaf, he is whipped, he saved Esmeralda, and defends Notre Dame. But outside of the movie telling the viewer that he is beautiful and innocent there is nothing to him.

Quasimodo

There is ONE thing that is sort of added, this Quasimodo doesn’t like to see how people react to him, which is why he lament his one eye. It’s not a new add-on but it’s something not wholly expressed in other versions.

Quasimodo

Aside from his personality, how is the deformity? It’s ok-ish. Much like the rest of the movie, the animation lacks fine details. You know there is a deformity, it’s the approximation of the way he looks. He also wears green which makes me think of the Disney design. Makes you wonder if someone at Disney saw this version.

Quasimodo

The 1986 version of Quasimodo isn’t as rich or detailed as some of the other versions and he makes the Laughton and Disney versions look menacing, which is a major feat.

Next Time – Frollo

Frollo

1 2 Next »

Category Archives: 1986

Burbank Vs Burbank

Mini Look Back of Hunchback versions that were reviewed in 2014

1986 version Conclusion

1986 Hunchback- Laziness & Adherence to the Novel

1986 Animation; So Lifeless it sucks the life right out of your eyes

1986 Character Design; Shaggy is that You?

1986 voice acting; I didn’t hate it

The Other Characters in 1986; Because they are there

1986 Frollo – Diet Dr.Frollo

1986 Quasimodo – The Sweetest Quasi Ever

Post Navigation