﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:spout="http://www.spout.com/schemas/rss/core/2006" xmlns:cf="http://www.microsoft.com/schemas/rss/core/2005">
  <channel>
    <cf:treatAs>list</cf:treatAs>
    <cf:listinfo>
      <cf:group element="type" label="Type" ns="http://www.spout.com/schemas/rss/core/2006" data-type="text" />
    </cf:listinfo>
    <title>The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Recent Activity - Spout</title>
    <link>http://www.spout.com/</link>
    <description>Recent community activity around The Hunchback of Notre Dame on Spout</description>
    <copyright>Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC</copyright>
    <generator>Spout RSS</generator>
    
    <item>
      <title>Film:The Hunchback of Notre Dame</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/films/The_Hunchback_of_Notre_Dame/219073/default.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<table width='100%' style='font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><tr><td><img align='left' src='http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t25570aw9dt.jpg' hspace='10' style='height:80px;' /></td>
<td>
<strong>Title:</strong> The Hunchback of Notre Dame<br/>
<strong>Year:</strong> 1996<br/>
<strong>Plot:</strong> Victor Hugo's classic story of a misshapen creature who learns to believe in himself amidst tumultuous circumstances receives yet another screen adaptation in this animated version. Quasimodo is a hunchback who was taken in as a child by the priests of the Temple of Notre Dame in Paris, and he helps to earn his keep by ringing the bells on schedule. While Quasimodo is often treated with cruelty both within and outside the gates of Notre Dame, he is shown kindness by Esmerelda, a lovely gypsy girl. However, while Quasimodo is infatuated with Esmerelda, she has also caught the eye of Frollo, the corrupt head of law enforcement who forces the hunchback to kidnap her. This animated version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not to be confused with the adaptation released by Walt Disney Studios in 1996. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide<br/>
<strong>Number of blog posts:</strong> 1<br/>
</td></tr></table>]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMT</pubDate><spout:Title>The Hunchback of Notre Dame</spout:Title><spout:Year>1996</spout:Year><spout:Plot>Victor Hugo's classic story of a misshapen creature who learns to believe in himself amidst tumultuous circumstances receives yet another screen adaptation in this animated version. Quasimodo is a hunchback who was taken in as a child by the priests of the Temple of Notre Dame in Paris, and he helps to earn his keep by ringing the bells on schedule. While Quasimodo is often treated with cruelty both within and outside the gates of Notre Dame, he is shown kindness by Esmerelda, a lovely gypsy girl. However, while Quasimodo is infatuated with Esmerelda, she has also caught the eye of Frollo, the corrupt head of law enforcement who forces the hunchback to kidnap her. This animated version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not to be confused with the adaptation released by Walt Disney Studios in 1996. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide</spout:Plot><spout:NumberOfBlogPosts>1</spout:NumberOfBlogPosts><spout:FilmCoverURL>http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t25570aw9dt.jpg</spout:FilmCoverURL><spout:SpoutFilmDetailURL>http://www.spout.com/films/The_Hunchback_of_Notre_Dame/219073/default.aspx</spout:SpoutFilmDetailURL><spout:type>Film</spout:type></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Post: 10 Worst Updates of 1930s Classics</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/9/34950.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div><img align='left' src='http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t25570aw9dt.jpg' hspace='10' style='height:80px;' />
<strong>Post By:</strong> <a href='http://www.spout.com/members/9325/default.aspx'>SpoutBlog</a><br/>
<strong>Post To:</strong> <a href='http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/default.aspx'>SpoutBlog on spout.com</a><br/>
<strong>Post Date:</strong> 9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM<br/>
<strong>Body:</strong> 
Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards.
Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works.


10. Return to Oz (1985)
I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums.

9. The Front Page (1974)
Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones).

8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992)
This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy.

7. Flash Gordon (1980)
I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both).

6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization.

5. Meet Joe Black (1998)
I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so.

4. The Mummy (1999)
There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages.

3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)
Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role.

2. King Kong (2005)
Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films.

1. Mr. Deeds (2002)
Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog<br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMT</pubDate><spout:postby>SpoutBlog</spout:postby><spout:postto>SpoutBlog on spout.com</spout:postto><spout:postdate>9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM</spout:postdate><spout:body>
Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards.
Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works.


10. Return to Oz (1985)
I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum.  It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums.

9. The Front Page (1974)
Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones).

8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992)
This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy.

7. Flash Gordon (1980)
I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both).

6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization.

5. Meet Joe Black (1998)
I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so.

4. The Mummy (1999)
There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages.

3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994)
Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role.

2. King Kong (2005)
Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films.

1. Mr. Deeds (2002)
Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog</spout:body></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Tag:cruelty</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cruelty/MemberTagFilms.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div style='display:block;height:120px;width:400px;font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><a href='/members/0/tags/cruelty/MemberTagFilms.aspx'>cruelty</a>
<strong><br/> Number of films tagged:</strong> 117</br><br/>
<strong>Number of people who tagged:</strong> 20</br><br/>
<strong>Number of times used:</strong> 23</br><br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:00:39 GMT</pubDate><spout:numFilms>117</spout:numFilms><spout:numPeople>20</spout:numPeople><spout:timesUsed>23</spout:timesUsed><spout:type>Tag</spout:type></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Tag:gypsy</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gypsy/MemberTagFilms.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div style='display:block;height:120px;width:400px;font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><a href='/members/0/tags/gypsy/MemberTagFilms.aspx'>gypsy</a>
<strong><br/> Number of films tagged:</strong> 200</br><br/>
<strong>Number of people who tagged:</strong> 13</br><br/>
<strong>Number of times used:</strong> 17</br><br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:17:06 GMT</pubDate><spout:numFilms>200</spout:numFilms><spout:numPeople>13</spout:numPeople><spout:timesUsed>17</spout:timesUsed><spout:type>Tag</spout:type></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Tag:infatuation</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/infatuation/MemberTagFilms.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div style='display:block;height:120px;width:400px;font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><a href='/members/0/tags/infatuation/MemberTagFilms.aspx'>infatuation</a>
<strong><br/> Number of films tagged:</strong> 137</br><br/>
<strong>Number of people who tagged:</strong> 10</br><br/>
<strong>Number of times used:</strong> 15</br><br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:02:52 GMT</pubDate><spout:numFilms>137</spout:numFilms><spout:numPeople>10</spout:numPeople><spout:timesUsed>15</spout:timesUsed><spout:type>Tag</spout:type></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Tag:hunchback</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hunchback/MemberTagFilms.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div style='display:block;height:120px;width:400px;font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><a href='/members/0/tags/hunchback/MemberTagFilms.aspx'>hunchback</a>
<strong><br/> Number of films tagged:</strong> 55</br><br/>
<strong>Number of people who tagged:</strong> 4</br><br/>
<strong>Number of times used:</strong> 7</br><br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:41:08 GMT</pubDate><spout:numFilms>55</spout:numFilms><spout:numPeople>4</spout:numPeople><spout:timesUsed>7</spout:timesUsed><spout:type>Tag</spout:type></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Tag:cathedral</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cathedral/MemberTagFilms.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div style='display:block;height:120px;width:400px;font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><a href='/members/0/tags/cathedral/MemberTagFilms.aspx'>cathedral</a>
<strong><br/> Number of films tagged:</strong> 84</br><br/>
<strong>Number of people who tagged:</strong> 3</br><br/>
<strong>Number of times used:</strong> 4</br><br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:41:08 GMT</pubDate><spout:numFilms>84</spout:numFilms><spout:numPeople>3</spout:numPeople><spout:timesUsed>4</spout:timesUsed><spout:type>Tag</spout:type></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Tag:kindness</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/kindness/MemberTagFilms.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div style='display:block;height:120px;width:400px;font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><a href='/members/0/tags/kindness/MemberTagFilms.aspx'>kindness</a>
<strong><br/> Number of films tagged:</strong> 38</br><br/>
<strong>Number of people who tagged:</strong> 3</br><br/>
<strong>Number of times used:</strong> 8</br><br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 19:41:09 GMT</pubDate><spout:numFilms>38</spout:numFilms><spout:numPeople>3</spout:numPeople><spout:timesUsed>8</spout:timesUsed><spout:type>Tag</spout:type></item>
    <item>
      <title>Spout Tag:bellringer</title>
      <link>http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/bellringer/MemberTagFilms.aspx</link><description><![CDATA[<div style='display:block;height:120px;width:400px;font:10px/10px Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;'><a href='/members/0/tags/bellringer/MemberTagFilms.aspx'>bellringer</a>
<strong><br/> Number of films tagged:</strong> 9</br><br/>
<strong>Number of people who tagged:</strong> 0</br><br/>
<strong>Number of times used:</strong> 0</br><br/>
</div>]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:01:43 GMT</pubDate><spout:numFilms>9</spout:numFilms><spout:numPeople>0</spout:numPeople><spout:timesUsed>0</spout:timesUsed><spout:type>Tag</spout:type></item>
  </channel>
</rss>