I love when frollo says "When your heartless mother abandoned you as a child, anyone else could have drowned you." He was really telling the truth in the book.
@@JulieSchulerVideos in the original phoebes x esmeralda is adultery becouse both are involved with each other while being unfaithful to their partners. She is a 16 year old married to a 26 year old poet , minstrel and playwright named Pierre gringoire who clearly loves her and sees her as his inspiring muse. and phoebes is like 30 and engaged to an 18 year old girl call fleur
Actually, more than the differences between book and film, I really enjoyed discovering the *similarities* . Like: -Quasimodo being crowned Pope of fools, -Clopin being the king of the Court of Miracles, -Djali (whom I thought to be just your everyday Disney animal sidekick, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that he was in the original story as well), -Frollo ignoring Quasimodo as he gets tortured and humiliated and Esmeralda then showing him mercy, -Quasimodo holding Esmeralda and screaming "Sanctuary!", -And the waterfalls of melted lead. I just wish Pierre Gringoire was in the film, he was my favourite character.
There's one thing this movie got right that no other has - no other movie version has ever managed to make Quasimodo so graceful as a mover. No other version has captured his superhuman swinging from the rooftops in quite the way Victor Hugo described it. If Hugo liked nothing else about this movie, I think he would have liked that.
Some of the differences Disney made- 1. They combined the festival of fools celebration and Esmeralda helping Quasimodo after his torture. Probably due to time. 2. The reason for Esmeralda's prosecution is changed almost entirely. Here she's tried simply because of defying Frollo. In the book Frollo _sneaks in and attempts to murder_ Phoebus on their night-out, then frames her for it. They also leave out the parts where she is unjustly tried and tortured to confess being a witch. It's obvious why Disney removed it, but this is mainly what changes the story. 3. In the book Phoebus is a jerk who leaves Esmeralda and marries a French aristocrat. Poor girl still believes he loves her throughout the book. 4. Frollo breaking into Esmeralda's room at night to try to…yk, and Quasimodo almost killing him were left out. Very dark scene, but it does stay in your mind(and it’s the only one with all three main characters). 5. The subplot of Gringoire, Fleur Dy Lys, Jehan Frollo and Gudule are completely gone. Gringoire's scenes and traits are incorporated in other characters but omitting Gudule leaves out a huge amount of Esmeralda's story. 6. The 'sanctuary' scene is at the climax, while in the book it's in the middle. 7. Quasimodo's origins are changed, but it makes for a great song and character intro. 8. There is no scene of Frollo burning Paris, which is interesting, as that means that someone from Disney came up with the idea of putting it in a kids movie. 10. The most realistic thing in the book was that the Parisian public liked Esmeralda before her trial, but once she was declared a witch no one cared and wanted to see her hang because entertainment. The public in the Disney film are comparatively nicer but much less historically accurate. 11. In the book everyone dies. Yeah, I probably have a lot of time.
I dont think there were talking gargoyles, Esmerelda probably died and btw this story is actually something so sad and eye opening cause when i was a kid i watched the movie like 10 times buh never really noticed much now i feel like i i understand better like all the trauma he went through knowing he would never be beautiful or like how everything Frollo said abt pple and the world was sadly correct
Did you know that Esmeralda was going to kill Judge Frollo in Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame? They scrapped because they didn’t want to get a PG-13 rating. You’ll find it on the IMBD trivia for Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame. “The filmmakers briefly considered having Quasimodo killed off, since that is his fate in the original novel. He was originally supposed to be stabbed by Frollo, then Esmeralda regains consciousness and tries to save him by killing Frollo. Phoebus was then supposed to meet up with them, and Quasimodo's last wish was to ring the bells one last time. They take him to the bells, then Esmeralda and Phoebus help him ring the bells as he dies. The final shot was going to include Esmeralda and Phoebus crying over their best friend as the people of Paris cheer for their success, unaware of Quasimodo's death. Luckily, this is not the ending that was used because even hardcore fans of the novel agree that the ending they used instead was a more suitable conclusion for the theme of this film” - IMDB Trivia. “The filmmakers originally wanted Esmeralda to kill Frollo in order to save Quasimodo. Esmeralda would've jumped onto the ledge then grabbed Quasimodo's hand. Frollo would've attempted to kill Quasimodo with his sword, then Esmeralda would've kicked Frollo off the cathedral, causing Frollo to fall to his death. This idea was ultimately abandoned, as having a heroine kill the villain was considered improper in a family film, and may have gotten the film a PG-13 rating” - IMDB Trivia. www.imdb.com/title/tt0116583/trivia/?ref_=tt_trv_trv
@@JulieSchulerVideosParents would've been PISSED if Esmeralda killed Judge Frollo. "Esmeralda is a bad role model for children Heroes/Heroines shouldn't kill the villain in a Disney film" - Oversensitive parents.
I find this interesting because a TV film adaptation of Notre-Dame de Paris titled "The Hunchback" was released a year after the Disney film's release and that film ends with Pierre Gringoire and Esmeralda ringing the bells of Notre Dame in tribute to Quasimodo as he dies from a stab wound inflicted by Frollo.
i wish they kept frollos brother and that frollo ina way did genuinely care for quosi. i think his care for him helped show his transition from good to evil due to lust
New Subbie! Esmerelda was my favorite character too. I loved this compare & contrast between the two!!!! I really believe Disney intentionally left out a lot of the books plot, characters & rewrote to preserve innocence to kids who watch it.
I absolutely agree! The changes Disney made to the movie were changes in order to get the outcome to be positive and they did a great job with them! But, typically, the book goes SO MUCH DEEPER (you can tell how much I cut out of the book narrative by the page counter jumping so much at parts 😅)
Hollywood does not soften the story just for children, the hunchback of Notre dame (1996) was for children, but the hunchback was Notre dame (1923) and the man who laughs (1928), both based on books by Victor Hugo were for the adult audience and still had their tragic endings changed. Critics of the time attacked the man who laughs for being too dark and yet the film softened the story of the book.
They wanted to create an idealized militant because they cannot stand that real life can be cruel and tragic. just read about the writer's daughter and her tragic life that has even become a film. Adele pursued a man in love and did not have his love returned. ruclips.net/video/gr_n5XOwANg/видео.html
I just played Phoebus in the stage production of Hunchback - would love to hear your thoughts on that version! It was the best time of my life - my new #1 musical!
I definitely didnt expect the scene where Esmarelda went airtight with Frollo, Quasi and Phoebus. I am no prude, its just and old novel but considering that its French i guess that I shouldn't have been so surprised
5:18 well, obviously the singing in the movie wasn’t in the book. I heard Frollo is a judge in the movie but a minister or deacon or priest in the book. I’m guessing that the gargoyles are alive in the movie since they’re able to hurt people and frollo dies seeing the gargoyle growl and in the book they are more like his imaginary friends.
I don’t care what others say but Frollo is my favourite character all the time. I don’t agree how Disney image Frollo’s appearance tho, he should be more bald and bearded(cos I like beard😂)
in the book frollo was an archdeacon not a judge, there were no talking gargoyles in the book, the movie tries to combine the festival of fools celebration with the part where he's being whipped but in the book these two things are much more spaced apart by time also in the movie quasi just gets fruit and veg tossed at him instead of being whipped, in the book frollo stabs phoebus and in the book esmeralda dies.
Frollo: Yo Phoebus! Let me hide in the same room that you're going to spend the night in so I can see that you're really going to hook up with Esmeralda. Phoebus: Sure. That sounds reasonable.
I never noticed until the thought came to me while watching this... Quasimodo could have chosen to be like The Phantom of the Opera, self- loathing and destructive
I like your (or your parents) taste in commentaries. As a pastor myself, my eyes were drawn to your coppy of Josephus and several of the baker commentary set. Do a litterary review of one of them next :)
@@JulieSchulerVideos I read it without properly understanding the plot. I think of rereading this super nostalgic book. I followed scholars online in high school, so there's also that. They are both good, but I do agree on some part with the criticism this works get on principle.
Honestly I actually like the movie (Disney version) better than the book. Esmeralda and Quasimodo are much more likeable in the movie and I actually was rooting for them. I didn’t feel that way in the book. Sue me. I like the Gargoyles. But I can’t stand Dory in Finding Nemo. So what do I know.
I agree that they are far more likable in the Disney movie! I think I appreciated the depth the book offered that I never had with the Disney movie, but having grown up watching the Disney movie it will always have a soft spot in my heart.
@@JulieSchulerVideos honestly I like Claude Frollo as Judge rather than a priest. I feel like that makes him scarier and makes him a more credible threat. Also the whole evil priest thing has been done to death. Plus I like him (Judge Frollo) better as a narcissistic sociopath rather than a sympathetic villain.
Relationships and real life are not always so beautiful and disney made everything very childish for children. Charles II of Spain, who had deformities, did not have a pleasant relationship with his wife, Maria Anna of Neuburg. Whom he hated and their relationship was not pleasant. Disney created a one-dimensional villain. He is not a complex character like raskonilkov . A children's animation is not a complex story and with great moral dilemmas like a classic. Frollo is a priest because he has a moral dilemma and a bun with his beliefs about chastity and his sexual desires. There would be no smoral dilemma for him. Like Gwynplaine in the man who laughs by Victor Hugo, he has a girlfriend, but the dilemma remains whether to remain faithful or accept his sexual desires for another woman. There is the dilemma of sexual beliefs and desires.
I too actually like the movie version better. Like you said, Esmeralda and Quasimodo are much more likeable: Quasimodo is much more kind in the movie, but in the book he feels so violent sometimes. And Esmeralda is much more brave in the movie, but in the book she feels a little serotypical. Other than that, I still thought the book was exciting! :)
@@MovieEnforcer Reading great classics written by Tolstoi, Victor Hugo and Dostoievski are not for people who are too lazy to read or who expect Manichean clichés and cartoon characters. Even the worst antagonists still had a kind and compassionate side with certain social groups, frollo is a cariucarural cruelty that looks more like comics than a classic literature. The Hunchbackof notre Dame is a great classic like Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishiment. Even the worst antagonists still had a kind and compassionate side with certain social groups, frollo is a cariucarural cruelty that seems more from comic books than from a classic of literature. Let's remember the javert in Les Miserables, he was unforgiving, but he never did any illegality. frollo was a fair man until his desire for Esmeralda to corrupt him. Frollo is like a conflict of morality as in Ivan Karamazov, raskonilkov and not a mere marvel villain who has the level of saucer depth. People love to create idealized heroes who in fact have had dishonorable conduct in their lives. People as well as sprecisma create idols to have something to worship and be their lifeline. Many people are narcissistic and need worship and create a false image and themselves to be worshiped. A more subtle version of the cult of personality. In the book the frollo was bad, but in the court of miracles there were many bandits and criminals. Hitler was cruel, but there was a lot of crudity from the allies. He treated the Philippines as Hitler treated Poland, England treated India as Hitler treated Poland, and so on. In the end nobody was good there, there were more or less cruel ones. Roosevelt supporting the somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua was much better than Hitler. No manichaeism by the good guy and the bad guy. People are so used to cinema and its simplistic Manichaeism and in real life there are dosages that are not so different from each other. What I find funnier is their deus ex machina saving Paris. When princess Olga of kiev decided to burn a city with her enemies there, nothing stopped her from doing it. People prefer escapist fantasies of reality and that is why they love many Disney films to accept a much tougher reality.
i just read the book summary.... jesus christ... if there was a Disney version of prequel Star Wars it would been like: and then Anakin helped Samuel Jackson push Darth Sidious off the chancellor tower, and they all live happily ever after LOL
@@JulieSchulerVideos Thanks for writing back to me! Your videos are as you are! Yes. Many Roma or Romani consider the name Gypsy to be pejorative. Others prefer their own ethnonym and object to being called Roma. Because of their migratory nature, their absence in official census returns, and their popular classification with other nomadic groups, estimates of the total world Roma population range from two million to five million.
disney’s the hunchback of Notre Dame is one of my favorite movies of all time and Quasimodo is my favorite character from the movie of all time! I found myself watching the movie at one point, I don’t remember when I was watching it but one time I was watching and I found myself just rooting for Quasimodo to get the happy ending he deserves! I was rooting for him and wanting him to go live a happy life. And when I first finish the film I was cheering because I was so happy for the man for getting his happy ending. And I was like this is my favorite movie now I’m watching this again. My soul has been captured by Quasimodo and has never been returned to me lol. Quasimoto has taken my soul! And I continue to watch this movie and I can’t stop! And I probably never will stop because this movie is so fun to watch.
Knowing the story and having all the details memorized are two very different things. I would really like to give this book a re-read because the first time I read it, it was by far the most advanced book I had put my mind to read and as a result I either forgot details or they went completely over my head because my brain just wasn't processing them. 🤷♀️
the book is racist, i'm not saying that the disney movie is much better, but at the very least 0 babies were stolen by romani in the movie. the book might have some compelling drama but due to the authors own biases its not one im comfortable calling one of the greats. I can't elaborate fully because that'd take forever , so i'll just recommend lindsay ellis video on the novel.
A movie about a church that tackles on religion, genocide, and oppression was probably the last thing you expect to come from the Mouse House. Hunchback of Notre Dame was a huge risk for Disney. I was actually impressed with the changes that were made from the Victor Hugo novel. It's understandable for Disney if they want to modify it. Disney didn't want Frollo to be the archdeacon because they wanted to give him more power, so they thought a judge would be more fitting. Another reason was that they didn't want to offend the religious by having one of their most evil villains belonging to the church. I think another changed I've liked is how they made Phoebus a nicer person. He's kind of a jerk in the original, and while he and Esmeralda were on a date (if you can call it a date), Frollo stabs him, and Phoebus pretends to die. It was demonstrated in the scene from Disney where they're at the miller's house, and Frollo tells Phoebus to burn it. Phoebus realizes that Frollo is a horrible person. "I wasn't trained to murder the innocent", he says, and he puts the torch in the bucket of water. Hats top off to that!
@@JulieSchulerVideos Yes, and Disney even had to change the tragic ending. Obviously, digging up the crypts of Notre Dame and finding two skeletons, with one wrapped around the other, wouldn't be a very good kid's movie. Disney wouldn't do that, like obviously they wouldn't kill of the little mermaid in The Little Mermaid or even kill off Simba in The Lion King like Shakespeare kills of Hamlet.
I actually thinkin Frollo is scarier as a judge than a priest because he has more power. Which definitely makes him a more credible threat. I mean what's a priest gonna. Given that Frollo is a racist religious fanatic, I think him being a priest would have been too obvious and way too on the nose. Besides the whole evil priest schtick has been done to death.
I am a big fan of of the movie. I think it is even better than the book. I tried reading the book before. I couldn't finish because Victor Hugo won't shut up about architecture. Seriously dude, even nerdy fantasy and sci fi stories show far more restraint with their world building. I recently listened to the audiobook while doing puzzles. It was still tortuous with the boring world building. I did manage to power through it. I can't reply to the prompts in the video in this comment. I already know what was in the book. I say this video follows the book pretty well except for skipping the world building and dropped characters. I can however say the most surprising things. I know that the book was darker. I knew that important characters died in the end. Yet there were more surprizes beyond that. One surprize is hat the main theme of the book is not religion, sexism or racism. Instead it was about restoring architexture. So there was focus on that. Maybe this as suppoesed to make the story more immersive and engaging, but I thought it waas as dry as a bone. When I listened to the audiobook, I found more surprizes. One big one is that the book is so much more racist than the movie. Yikes! Someone should seriously put a little disclamer at the beginning of every new copy of the book. I don't approve of censorship. The book should be preserved the way it is. I just wish there was some kind of heads up. This kind of racism is not okay to put in a story. It is just not. In the movie, there is racism against the Romani as a setup. Then it shows that such racism is wrong. Having subverted racism in a story is fine, even if it can be tricky to pull off. The Disney movies Pocahontas and Zootopia does this too. One mistake in the Hunchback of Notre Dame movie is that the Romani are frequently called the G-word. That is bad. This should be fixed in future retellings. The book goes all in with the racism. There is no explaination that this racism is wrong. It is super appalling and super offensive. One of the worst parts is claims that Romani steal and eat babies. That is so ludicrous and paranoid. It reminds me of the hogwash about Qanon and Pizzagate. I think the Jews got accused of the same thing. I know very little about Romani and thier culture I admit. However I do beleive they do not steal and eat babies. Nobody would do such a vile disgusting thing. Accusing the Romani of this anyway is super racist, even xenophobic. Esmeralda is the main Romani character. She is really different in the book, This is another surprize. The difference between the book and movie versions of the character is like night and day. In the Disney movie, Esmeralda is awesome. She is strong and assertive. She puts up with none of Frollo's hogwash. I like stong women of color. Disney Esmeralda is definitly one of them. In the book Esmeralda is a terrible character. All she does is look pretty, give performances and obsess over Pheobus. A bunch of men are attracted to her as if by some exotic fetish. This is the worst way imaginable to depict a woman of color. I recently learned that there is a truely disgusting stereotipe of Romani women being a romanticized fetsih and that Esmeralda fits into this perfectly. Yuck! Eww!! The Disney version of Esmeralda fits into the stereotype too. It may have been unavoidable for this character. However the strength relly shines through. So the stereotyping gets toned down a lot. There is also a wierd backstory, where Esmeralda is not really Romani and she started out as a stolen baby. So that cheats her out of representing woman of color entirey. I am so glad that Disney cut it. It doesn't get into any backstory. However it clearly shows Esmeralda as a true Romani especially with her dark skin. The last Surprizing thin is Esmeralda's goat, Djali. I thought Disney added in this goat to appeal more to kids. It adds in animal sidkicks all the time. It did this with the trio of gargoyles. But nope/ Djali is actually in the origional book. It was just one of the characters carried over into the Disney movie. I was really surprized by this. There is a different in a much darker and grim depiction. In the Disney movie Djali is just a regular animal sidekick. It is just as cute and funny as other similar characters. However in the book, it is associated with wichcraft and Satanism. It makes sense due to the negative stereotyping of goats in a religious context. It is so creepy.
It’s not correct for today’s time, but it’s also a very old book set in the medieval period. Such things are expected. For the time though, it was still remarkable that many major characters were Romani, and it showed the discrimination towards them by churches.
I won’t really argue with your take on the racial overtones. Negative depictions of nonwhites were common in western literature at the time. They always been throughout history, I think it’s unfair to judge a 1831 novel with modern values, given the fact they had different views of gender and race when we do today. About G word that refers to the Romani people, that was common thing to refer to them at the time period, it won’t be considered offensive then.
I think you didn't really understand a lot of keypoints in the book and given that you listened to such a difficult book as background noise plays a big part. Don't go around saying shit.
I love when frollo says "When your heartless mother abandoned you as a child, anyone else could have drowned you." He was really telling the truth in the book.
Right??
@@JulieSchulerVideosHer mom was a fool to have left her at home alone for gipsies to steal her.
@@JulieSchulerVideos in the original phoebes x esmeralda is adultery becouse both are involved with each other while being unfaithful to their partners. She is a 16 year old married to a 26 year old poet , minstrel and playwright named Pierre gringoire who clearly loves her and sees her as his inspiring muse. and phoebes is like 30 and engaged to an 18 year old girl call fleur
He also saves him cause it reminds him of his brother who was an infant when their parents died 😢!!
Even if it cannot reach the level of epic darkness of the book, it remains one of the deepest Disney movies ever made
Facts
Actually, more than the differences between book and film, I really enjoyed discovering the *similarities* . Like:
-Quasimodo being crowned Pope of fools,
-Clopin being the king of the Court of Miracles,
-Djali (whom I thought to be just your everyday Disney animal sidekick, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that he was in the original story as well),
-Frollo ignoring Quasimodo as he gets tortured and humiliated and Esmeralda then showing him mercy,
-Quasimodo holding Esmeralda and screaming "Sanctuary!",
-And the waterfalls of melted lead.
I just wish Pierre Gringoire was in the film, he was my favourite character.
This is a very good point! I was also really happily surprised to find out Djali was in the book, too!
There's one thing this movie got right that no other has - no other movie version has ever managed to make Quasimodo so graceful as a mover. No other version has captured his superhuman swinging from the rooftops in quite the way Victor Hugo described it. If Hugo liked nothing else about this movie, I think he would have liked that.
my favorite part of the book was esmeralda’s mom and how they got reunited so it’s a shame that never made it to the movie
That was such an intense part of the book!! I am also sad it didn't make it
This was so fun to watch!!! I had forgotten the plot of the hunchback of Notre Dame, but you narrated it so well. Also, I loved the editing!
Thank you!
Is no one going to talk about the editing? It's hilarious!
THANK YOU!
Some of the differences Disney made-
1. They combined the festival of fools celebration and Esmeralda helping Quasimodo after his torture. Probably due to time.
2. The reason for Esmeralda's prosecution is changed almost entirely. Here she's tried simply because of defying Frollo. In the book Frollo _sneaks in and attempts to murder_ Phoebus on their night-out, then frames her for it. They also leave out the parts where she is unjustly tried and tortured to confess being a witch. It's obvious why Disney removed it, but this is mainly what changes the story.
3. In the book Phoebus is a jerk who leaves Esmeralda and marries a French aristocrat. Poor girl still believes he loves her throughout the book.
4. Frollo breaking into Esmeralda's room at night to try to…yk, and Quasimodo almost killing him were left out. Very dark scene, but it does stay in your mind(and it’s the only one with all three main characters).
5. The subplot of Gringoire, Fleur Dy Lys, Jehan Frollo and Gudule are completely gone. Gringoire's scenes and traits are incorporated in other characters but omitting Gudule leaves out a huge amount of Esmeralda's story.
6. The 'sanctuary' scene is at the climax, while in the book it's in the middle.
7. Quasimodo's origins are changed, but it makes for a great song and character intro.
8. There is no scene of Frollo burning Paris, which is interesting, as that means that someone from Disney came up with the idea of putting it in a kids movie.
10. The most realistic thing in the book was that the Parisian public liked Esmeralda before her trial, but once she was declared a witch no one cared and wanted to see her hang because entertainment. The public in the Disney film are comparatively nicer but much less historically accurate.
11. In the book everyone dies.
Yeah, I probably have a lot of time.
It’s cool and interesting learning about the original hunchback of notre dame book, I remember watching the Disney movie when I was little 😊
This is brilliant, thank you for taking the time to make this. I'm off to part two ^_^
Thank you!
I dont think there were talking gargoyles, Esmerelda probably died and btw this story is actually something so sad and eye opening cause when i was a kid i watched the movie like 10 times buh never really noticed much now i feel like i i understand better like all the trauma he went through knowing he would never be beautiful or like how everything Frollo said abt pple and the world was sadly correct
Did you know that Esmeralda was going to kill Judge Frollo in Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame? They scrapped because they didn’t want to get a PG-13 rating. You’ll find it on the IMBD trivia for Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame.
“The filmmakers briefly considered having Quasimodo killed off, since that is his fate in the original novel. He was originally supposed to be stabbed by Frollo, then Esmeralda regains consciousness and tries to save him by killing Frollo. Phoebus was then supposed to meet up with them, and Quasimodo's last wish was to ring the bells one last time. They take him to the bells, then Esmeralda and Phoebus help him ring the bells as he dies. The final shot was going to include Esmeralda and Phoebus crying over their best friend as the people of Paris cheer for their success, unaware of Quasimodo's death. Luckily, this is not the ending that was used because even hardcore fans of the novel agree that the ending they used instead was a more suitable conclusion for the theme of this film” - IMDB Trivia.
“The filmmakers originally wanted Esmeralda to kill Frollo in order to save Quasimodo. Esmeralda would've jumped onto the ledge then grabbed Quasimodo's hand. Frollo would've attempted to kill Quasimodo with his sword, then Esmeralda would've kicked Frollo off the cathedral, causing Frollo to fall to his death. This idea was ultimately abandoned, as having a heroine kill the villain was considered improper in a family film, and may have gotten the film a PG-13 rating” - IMDB Trivia.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0116583/trivia/?ref_=tt_trv_trv
I did not know that. Fascinating!
@@JulieSchulerVideosParents would've been PISSED if Esmeralda killed Judge Frollo.
"Esmeralda is a bad role model for children Heroes/Heroines shouldn't kill the villain in a Disney film" - Oversensitive parents.
I find this interesting because a TV film adaptation of Notre-Dame de Paris titled "The Hunchback" was released a year after the Disney film's release and that film ends with Pierre Gringoire and Esmeralda ringing the bells of Notre Dame in tribute to Quasimodo as he dies from a stab wound inflicted by Frollo.
What bullls....t would Disney not invent?
i wish they kept frollos brother and that frollo ina way did genuinely care for quosi. i think his care for him helped show his transition from good to evil due to lust
Yes! There are so many characters I would have loved to see!
New Subbie! Esmerelda was my favorite character too. I loved this compare & contrast between the two!!!! I really believe Disney intentionally left out a lot of the books plot, characters & rewrote to preserve innocence to kids who watch it.
I absolutely agree! The changes Disney made to the movie were changes in order to get the outcome to be positive and they did a great job with them! But, typically, the book goes SO MUCH DEEPER (you can tell how much I cut out of the book narrative by the page counter jumping so much at parts 😅)
Hollywood does not soften the story just for children, the hunchback of Notre dame (1996) was for children, but the hunchback was Notre dame (1923) and the man who laughs (1928), both based on books by Victor Hugo were for the adult audience and still had their tragic endings changed. Critics of the time attacked the man who laughs for being too dark and yet the film softened the story of the book.
They wanted to create an idealized militant because they cannot stand that real life can be cruel and tragic.
just read about the writer's daughter and her tragic life that has even become a film. Adele pursued a man in love and did not have his love returned.
ruclips.net/video/gr_n5XOwANg/видео.html
this deserves much more recognition great video
Thank you! 🥺
Yeah, I definitely should try to read the original book soon. Sounds interesting so far.
I just played Phoebus in the stage production of Hunchback - would love to hear your thoughts on that version! It was the best time of my life - my new #1 musical!
Ooh! I would love to see the stage production!
I definitely didnt expect the scene where Esmarelda went airtight with Frollo, Quasi and Phoebus. I am no prude, its just and old novel but considering that its French i guess that I shouldn't have been so surprised
There's a good musical, call Notre-Dame de Paris, baed on the book
5:18 well, obviously the singing in the movie wasn’t in the book. I heard Frollo is a judge in the movie but a minister or deacon or priest in the book. I’m guessing that the gargoyles are alive in the movie since they’re able to hurt people and frollo dies seeing the gargoyle growl and in the book they are more like his imaginary friends.
I don’t care what others say but Frollo is my favourite character all the time. I don’t agree how Disney image Frollo’s appearance tho, he should be more bald and bearded(cos I like beard😂)
in the book frollo was an archdeacon not a judge, there were no talking gargoyles in the book, the movie tries to combine the festival of fools celebration with the part where he's being whipped but in the book these two things are much more spaced apart by time also in the movie quasi just gets fruit and veg tossed at him instead of being whipped, in the book frollo stabs phoebus and in the book esmeralda dies.
I don't care about the differences from the book, this is still my absolute favourite Disney film ever
It's a great movie on it's own!
Frollo: Yo Phoebus! Let me hide in the same room that you're going to spend the night in so I can see that you're really going to hook up with Esmeralda.
Phoebus: Sure. That sounds reasonable.
I never noticed until the thought came to me while watching this... Quasimodo could have chosen to be like The Phantom of the Opera, self- loathing and destructive
So true! I had that thought as well!
@@JulieSchulerVideos Thank you for sharing your summaries and thoughts. I've watched all three of your videos on this subject!
Thank you!! I was mildly obsessed with The Hunchback book when I first read it 😅
I like your (or your parents) taste in commentaries. As a pastor myself, my eyes were drawn to your coppy of Josephus and several of the baker commentary set. Do a litterary review of one of them next :)
That would be a topic my husband would cover, as those particular books are all his!
Did you do The Fox And The Hound original novel?
I know the story and it's very different and savagely violent book from the beginning to the end
@bellamovie2
Definitely more realistic.
good video.
I read the book as a child.
There is no way I would have been able to get through it as a child!
@@JulieSchulerVideos I read it without properly understanding the plot. I think of rereading this super nostalgic book. I followed scholars online in high school, so there's also that.
They are both good, but I do agree on some part with the criticism this works get on principle.
Good book
I really enjoyed it!
If you like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, there is a YA book series called The Hunchback Assignments. It's actually really good and I loved it!
Oh very cool!
The Disney version might not be as accurate but it did cover up the book pretty well to make it bearable for children lol
Honestly I actually like the movie (Disney version) better than the book. Esmeralda and Quasimodo are much more likeable in the movie and I actually was rooting for them. I didn’t feel that way in the book.
Sue me. I like the Gargoyles. But I can’t stand Dory in Finding Nemo. So what do I know.
I agree that they are far more likable in the Disney movie! I think I appreciated the depth the book offered that I never had with the Disney movie, but having grown up watching the Disney movie it will always have a soft spot in my heart.
@@JulieSchulerVideos honestly I like Claude Frollo as Judge rather than a priest. I feel like that makes him scarier and makes him a more credible threat. Also the whole evil priest thing has been done to death. Plus I like him (Judge Frollo) better as a narcissistic sociopath rather than a sympathetic villain.
Relationships and real life are not always so beautiful and disney made everything very childish for children.
Charles II of Spain, who had deformities, did not have a pleasant relationship with his wife, Maria Anna of Neuburg. Whom he hated and their relationship was not pleasant.
Disney created a one-dimensional villain.
He is not a complex character like raskonilkov . A children's animation is not a complex story and with great moral dilemmas like a classic. Frollo is a priest because he has a moral dilemma and a bun with his beliefs about chastity and his sexual desires. There would be no smoral dilemma for him. Like Gwynplaine in the man who laughs by Victor Hugo, he has a girlfriend, but the dilemma remains whether to remain faithful or accept his sexual desires for another woman.
There is the dilemma of sexual beliefs and desires.
I too actually like the movie version better. Like you said, Esmeralda and Quasimodo are much more likeable: Quasimodo is much more kind in the movie, but in the book he feels so violent sometimes. And Esmeralda is much more brave in the movie, but in the book she feels a little serotypical. Other than that, I still thought the book was exciting! :)
@@MovieEnforcer Reading great classics written by Tolstoi, Victor Hugo and Dostoievski are not for people who are too lazy to read or who expect Manichean clichés and cartoon characters.
Even the worst antagonists still had a kind and compassionate side with certain social groups, frollo is a cariucarural cruelty that looks more like comics than a classic literature.
The Hunchbackof notre Dame is a great classic like Anna Karenina and Crime and Punishiment.
Even the worst antagonists still had a kind and compassionate side with certain social groups, frollo is a cariucarural cruelty that seems more from comic books than from a classic of literature.
Let's remember the javert in Les Miserables, he was unforgiving, but he never did any illegality. frollo was a fair man until his desire for Esmeralda to corrupt him.
Frollo is like a conflict of morality as in Ivan Karamazov, raskonilkov and not a mere marvel villain who has the level of saucer depth.
People love to create idealized heroes who in fact have had dishonorable conduct in their lives. People as well as sprecisma create idols to have something to worship and be their lifeline. Many people are narcissistic and need worship and create a false image and themselves to be worshiped. A more subtle version of the cult of personality.
In the book the frollo was bad, but in the court of miracles there were many bandits and criminals. Hitler was cruel, but there was a lot of crudity from the allies. He treated the Philippines as Hitler treated Poland, England treated India as Hitler treated Poland, and so on. In the end nobody was good there, there were more or less cruel ones.
Roosevelt supporting the somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua was much better than Hitler. No manichaeism by the good guy and the bad guy.
People are so used to cinema and its simplistic Manichaeism and in real life there are dosages that are not so different from each other.
What I find funnier is their deus ex machina saving Paris.
When princess Olga of kiev decided to burn a city with her enemies there, nothing stopped her from doing it.
People prefer escapist fantasies of reality and that is why they love many Disney films to accept a much tougher reality.
Esmeralda is my girl. Have you seen the stage both based on the book and movie.
The stage adaptation? I haven't but it sounds really interesting!
@@JulieSchulerVideos it's played by Playbill theater and it's on youtube
@@JulieSchulerVideos just to put it out there it the Les Mis vibe
Ooh, I'm gonna have to search it! Thanks!
@@JulieSchulerVideos your welcome and I hope you enjoy it . maybe in future you can do a response video of the show?
Oh you like that character? Yeah they died
Basically 😂
Hah, jokes on you, my favourite character was Pierre Gringore
i just read the book summary....
jesus christ... if there was a Disney version of prequel Star Wars
it would been like: and then Anakin helped Samuel Jackson push Darth Sidious off the chancellor tower, and they all live happily ever after LOL
More death, no happy endings
The politically correct term in present day is "Romani," not "gypsy."
Good to know!
@@JulieSchulerVideos Thanks for writing back to me! Your videos are as you are!
Yes. Many Roma or Romani consider the name Gypsy to be pejorative. Others prefer their own ethnonym and object to being called Roma. Because of their migratory nature, their absence in official census returns, and their popular classification with other nomadic groups, estimates of the total world Roma population range from two million to five million.
That's really interesting! Thanks for letting me know! ☺️
disney’s the hunchback of Notre Dame is one of my favorite movies of all time and Quasimodo is my favorite character from the movie of all time! I found myself watching the movie at one point, I don’t remember when I was watching it but one time I was watching and I found myself just rooting for Quasimodo to get the happy ending he deserves! I was rooting for him and wanting him to go live a happy life. And when I first finish the film I was cheering because I was so happy for the man for getting his happy ending. And I was like this is my favorite movie now I’m watching this again. My soul has been captured by Quasimodo and has never been returned to me lol. Quasimoto has taken my soul! And I continue to watch this movie and I can’t stop! And I probably never will stop because this movie is so fun to watch.
also the musical is so good! And one of my favorites. I love the musical. The songs are super fun to listen to.
#myEsmereldawouldnever
The hunchback of Notre Dame is one of the darkest Disney movies ever made and I love it 💓. I have never read the book.
Oh, I 10/10 recommend the book!
If you think the movie was dark, OHHH boy. It's honestly nothing compared to the book. Literally nobody gets a happy ending.
Its molten lead. You claim to know the story and don't know that Quasimodo throws molten lead from the Tower at the climax? 🙈
Knowing the story and having all the details memorized are two very different things. I would really like to give this book a re-read because the first time I read it, it was by far the most advanced book I had put my mind to read and as a result I either forgot details or they went completely over my head because my brain just wasn't processing them. 🤷♀️
Also, your profile picture is adorable!
@@JulieSchulerVideos Was it said in book where did he get that lead?
the book is racist, i'm not saying that the disney movie is much better, but at the very least 0 babies were stolen by romani in the movie. the book might have some compelling drama but due to the authors own biases its not one im comfortable calling one of the greats. I can't elaborate fully because that'd take forever , so i'll just recommend lindsay ellis video on the novel.
A movie about a church that tackles on religion, genocide, and oppression was probably the last thing you expect to come from the Mouse House. Hunchback of Notre Dame was a huge risk for Disney.
I was actually impressed with the changes that were made from the Victor Hugo novel. It's understandable for Disney if they want to modify it. Disney didn't want Frollo to be the archdeacon because they wanted to give him more power, so they thought a judge would be more fitting. Another reason was that they didn't want to offend the religious by having one of their most evil villains belonging to the church.
I think another changed I've liked is how they made Phoebus a nicer person. He's kind of a jerk in the original, and while he and Esmeralda were on a date (if you can call it a date), Frollo stabs him, and Phoebus pretends to die. It was demonstrated in the scene from Disney where they're at the miller's house, and Frollo tells Phoebus to burn it. Phoebus realizes that Frollo is a horrible person. "I wasn't trained to murder the innocent", he says, and he puts the torch in the bucket of water. Hats top off to that!
Honestly, I agree. Disney did a good job with making this story somewhat more family friendly!
@@JulieSchulerVideos Yes, and Disney even had to change the tragic ending. Obviously, digging up the crypts of Notre Dame and finding two skeletons, with one wrapped around the other, wouldn't be a very good kid's movie. Disney wouldn't do that, like obviously they wouldn't kill of the little mermaid in The Little Mermaid or even kill off Simba in The Lion King like Shakespeare kills of Hamlet.
There people that use religion to fill in thier own selfish and narcissistic ideals of the wrold
I actually thinkin Frollo is scarier as a judge than a priest because he has more power. Which definitely makes him a more credible threat. I mean what's a priest gonna.
Given that Frollo is a racist religious fanatic, I think him being a priest would have been too obvious and way too on the nose. Besides the whole evil priest schtick has been done to death.
I am a big fan of of the movie. I think it is even better than the book. I tried reading the book before. I couldn't finish because Victor Hugo won't shut up about architecture. Seriously dude, even nerdy fantasy and sci fi stories show far more restraint with their world building. I recently listened to the audiobook while doing puzzles. It was still tortuous with the boring world building. I did manage to power through it. I can't reply to the prompts in the video in this comment. I already know what was in the book. I say this video follows the book pretty well except for skipping the world building and dropped characters. I can however say the most surprising things. I know that the book was darker. I knew that important characters died in the end. Yet there were more surprizes beyond that. One surprize is hat the main theme of the book is not religion, sexism or racism. Instead it was about restoring architexture. So there was focus on that. Maybe this as suppoesed to make the story more immersive and engaging, but I thought it waas as dry as a bone. When I listened to the audiobook, I found more surprizes. One big one is that the book is so much more racist than the movie. Yikes! Someone should seriously put a little disclamer at the beginning of every new copy of the book. I don't approve of censorship. The book should be preserved the way it is. I just wish there was some kind of heads up. This kind of racism is not okay to put in a story. It is just not. In the movie, there is racism against the Romani as a setup. Then it shows that such racism is wrong. Having subverted racism in a story is fine, even if it can be tricky to pull off. The Disney movies Pocahontas and Zootopia does this too. One mistake in the Hunchback of Notre Dame movie is that the Romani are frequently called the G-word. That is bad. This should be fixed in future retellings. The book goes all in with the racism. There is no explaination that this racism is wrong. It is super appalling and super offensive. One of the worst parts is claims that Romani steal and eat babies. That is so ludicrous and paranoid. It reminds me of the hogwash about Qanon and Pizzagate. I think the Jews got accused of the same thing. I know very little about Romani and thier culture I admit. However I do beleive they do not steal and eat babies. Nobody would do such a vile disgusting thing. Accusing the Romani of this anyway is super racist, even xenophobic. Esmeralda is the main Romani character. She is really different in the book, This is another surprize. The difference between the book and movie versions of the character is like night and day. In the Disney movie, Esmeralda is awesome. She is strong and assertive. She puts up with none of Frollo's hogwash. I like stong women of color. Disney Esmeralda is definitly one of them. In the book Esmeralda is a terrible character. All she does is look pretty, give performances and obsess over Pheobus. A bunch of men are attracted to her as if by some exotic fetish. This is the worst way imaginable to depict a woman of color. I recently learned that there is a truely disgusting stereotipe of Romani women being a romanticized fetsih and that Esmeralda fits into this perfectly. Yuck! Eww!! The Disney version of Esmeralda fits into the stereotype too. It may have been unavoidable for this character. However the strength relly shines through. So the stereotyping gets toned down a lot. There is also a wierd backstory, where Esmeralda is not really Romani and she started out as a stolen baby. So that cheats her out of representing woman of color entirey. I am so glad that Disney cut it. It doesn't get into any backstory. However it clearly shows Esmeralda as a true Romani especially with her dark skin. The last Surprizing thin is Esmeralda's goat, Djali. I thought Disney added in this goat to appeal more to kids. It adds in animal sidkicks all the time. It did this with the trio of gargoyles. But nope/ Djali is actually in the origional book. It was just one of the characters carried over into the Disney movie. I was really surprized by this. There is a different in a much darker and grim depiction. In the Disney movie Djali is just a regular animal sidekick. It is just as cute and funny as other similar characters. However in the book, it is associated with wichcraft and Satanism. It makes sense due to the negative stereotyping of goats in a religious context. It is so creepy.
It’s not correct for today’s time, but it’s also a very old book set in the medieval period. Such things are expected. For the time though, it was still remarkable that many major characters were Romani, and it showed the discrimination towards them by churches.
I won’t really argue with your take on the racial overtones. Negative depictions of nonwhites were common in western literature at the time. They always been throughout history, I think it’s unfair to judge a 1831 novel with modern values, given the fact they had different views of gender and race when we do today. About G word that refers to the Romani people, that was common thing to refer to them at the time period, it won’t be considered offensive then.
I think you didn't really understand a lot of keypoints in the book and given that you listened to such a difficult book as background noise plays a big part. Don't go around saying shit.