If you think about it, Pocahontas and Esmeralda does share a lot of similarities. Both of them are strong, assertive non-Caucasian women who runs barefoot. Both of them falls in love with a blonde Captain, which are in mission to kill their race. Both of them have headstrong animal sidekicks who helps them and even opposes against the love interest. Who do you prefer of those two and why?
shareTrue.
I'm biased for Pocahontas cuz I like Native American/American history. But I think overall Esmeralda has more personality, and is more interesting.
It's a close race though. Cuz Pocahontas may be a bit dull compared to Esmeralda, but that's an unfair comparison cuz Esmeralda is very colorful lol. Pocahontas still has a lot going for her: she's adventurous, wise, spiritual, and very curious.
Okay.
Esmeralda may have a more vivacious and engaging personality, but I find her to be overall more flawed than Pocahontas. Esmeralda doesn't always makes the smartest decisions and her kissing Quasi on the cheek was simply to just melt him and using her flirting to make him change his mind. And not mention her assessments to Frollo were certainly misfires (though it's not to indicate that I'm misogenyst and that Esmeralda was the one who triggered Frollo's searching for her, her flirt with Frollo was not a good idea).
Pocahontas may seem too serious and mellow and seems to be outshined by her fellow cast (*cough, the animals, cough*), but is overall a more complex character and frankly more mature and wiser. She has a strenght and a dignity that makes her compelling and frankly I don't consider her to be as dull as many people wants her to be. I actually consider her to have a personality (a subdued one), it's just that she's overshadowed by her fellow cast.
In terms of beauty, though both of them are beautiful in different ways, it's clearer that Esmeralda is sexier and more physically beautiful. But Pocahontas' design is unique and makes her quite appealing.
I was just gonna say: Esmeralda's flaws are that she might be a bit too "fiery" for some tastes, not to mention rough around the edges. For sure. Fyi, I'm not even a fan of Esmeralda.
Like I said, I prefer Pocahontas hands down. I also think her dignity and composure are very admirable. But in her movie, her character was a product of political correctness, so that's why she wasn't as relatable as she could've been. Disney was afraid of offending Native Americans with this movie (even though they ended up doing so anyway, ha—for entirely different reasons!).
her character was a product of political correctness, so that's why she wasn't as relatable as she could've been. Disney was afraid of offending Native Americans with this movie
^ I agree w/ everything you just said about both characters! Yeah, in many ways Esmeralda was the apex of the whole "feminist" agenda of Disney during the 1990s... even more than Mulan, who at least had flaws and vulnerabilities in spite of her reputation for being a big strong soldier.
Btw, I also love Pocahontas the most for personal reasons and it's my all-time favorite Disney animated flick, in spite of its flaws :)
^ I agree w/ everything you just said about both characters! Yeah, in many ways Esmeralda was the apex of the whole "feminist" agenda of Disney during the 1990s... even more than Mulan, who at least had flaws and vulnerabilities in spite of her reputation for being a big strong soldier.
Btw, I also love Pocahontas the most for personal reasons and it's my all-time favorite Disney animated flick, in spite of its flaws :)
Yes, the last I saw in Disneyland was a Ratcliffe button pin, of all things.
It's ok. I understand why it's not popular: it wasn't the best movie, or that much "fun". It happens. Like I said: I know it's not. I just simply love it for personal reasons:
1. I've always loved American History (I know, I'm a freak haha...). 2. I think the story idea/visuals of this movie is just so unique among the Disney canon. It's stunning. 3. I always like things that are unique, and alternative to the mainstream, haha... so it's literally my fate to like this movie :)
I think a big part of the reason I fell in love with this movie from a young age was Alan Menken's amazing score. That is some powerful, emotional music. I just can't help but feel so many emotions when I hear it. The songs, obviously, are great as well, but I actually think the score outshines them. This and Hunchback (which I also love) seem like the only movies where they let him do a really powerful, serious score, I guess because both have rather serious messages about race and war.
In spite of my critiques of her character, I also have related to Pocahontas on many levels since I was very young. I've always been somewhat of a loner, all the while still caring a great deal for humanity, so I could really identify with how they portrayed her as always going off into nature alone to reflect.
While I get why this movie isn't for everyone, the reason it bothers me that Disney neglects it so much is that it's basically a business decision (fewer people like Pocahontas, so promoting it will get fewer ticket/merchandise sales), and, in spite of what a revenue giant Disney is known to be, it still just feels cynical and like a betrayal of what Disney magic is supposed to be about.
I also identify with Pocahontas because I'm adventurous and open-minded, but also very introspective and thoughtful. I was reading a Disney book at Barnes and Noble once, and they described Pocahontas as a "complex character: bold and daring, but also"—(thoughtful and compassionate). I think that's why she's so compelling to me. She has that great balance, that few other Disney female leads have. I also just love the great freedom of her lifestyle: running and leaping through this (stunning) wild landscape. It looks great!!! Haha. Lastly, even though her character wasn't without flaw (read: a product of Political Correctness), I think she pulled off the feminist agenda of the Disney Renaissance the best: She wasn't reckless or selfish like Ariel, she wasn't pretentious like Belle (the whole "reads books" thing has been discussed at length by Disney fans as a bit overrated—not to mention, Belle is more of a "goody-goody"/"PC" feminist character if you think about it: she's barely presented with any flaws!). Jasmine was just a whiner (I can't stand her—she was one of the worst feminist examples of that Disney era). Esmeralda, as we discussed here, is just too over-the-top and shrill in some ways—they tried way too had to make her "tough". Megara always seemed like the cousin once removed of Esmeralda in that sense too—although I like her overall, in the context of the Disney Renaissance female leads, she was overkill at that point haha! And then we have Mulan, whom I do like. But like Belle: is overrated for her feminist "progressiveness".
Pocahontas was strong, wise, and clearly independent—but she wasn't shrill or flashy about it. It could be argued that this was more of a byproduct of Political Correctness again, haha... Disney did try very hard to make Native Americans look "noble, peaceful", etc... hence why they dialed down traits in Pocahontas that were accentuated in other female leads (Esmeralda, Meg, Jasmine).
P.S. I like your last comment about Disney following their wallet too much. True!
she pulled off the feminist agenda of the Disney Renaissance the best: She wasn't reckless or selfish like Ariel, she wasn't pretentious like Belle (the whole "reads books" thing has been discussed at length by Disney fans as a bit overrated—not to mention, Belle is more of a "goody-goody"/"PC" feminist character if you think about it: she's barely presented with any flaws!). Jasmine was just a whiner (I can't stand her—she was one of the worst feminist examples of that Disney era). Esmeralda, as we discussed here, is just too over-the-top and shrill in some ways—they tried way too had to make her "tough". Megara always seemed like the cousin once removed of Esmeralda in that sense too—although I like her overall, in the context of the Disney Renaissance female leads, she was overkill at that point haha! And then we have Mulan, whom I do like. But like Belle: is overrated for her feminist "progressiveness".
Good points. I also agree with the argument that Mulan had to become a man in order to be herself, which negates the whole feminist agenda. I read that somewhere else, too.
I think the complaints that could be argued against Pocahontas are mostly PC-based. Like I said, they didn't make her "human" enough: i.e. a bit immature, whiny, or hotheaded. I know, we're criticizing the other DP's for those very traits. Maybe Disney intentionally made them flawed like that? Ha. Well, Ariel for example: I never bought the argument her detractors claim: that she's "shallow/immature" with her singular pursuit of a man. I think it's just very emblematic of any sixteen year old girl, frankly. She's only "human"/mermaid! She has plenty of admirable traits otherwise like courage and spunkiness. That leads back to playing devil's advocate against Pocahontas: she lacked some genuine authenticity, like Ariel's spunk. But if you think about it: weren't some of the classic DP's like Cinderella and Aurora pretty "flawless" too? They weren't exactly imbued with high personality either. You can argue that was the sign of their times when those films were released, but they're still very popular characters.
Pocahontas wasn't much fun as a character, or a movie—which is why it hasn't fared well in the Disney lexicon. She DID do fun things like diving, running, and exploring new people and things. But her actual personality, I can see, isn't fun per se. The way she spoke and behaved was too well-behaved—again, prolly cuz Disney was terrified of offending Native Americans.
As for your idea of what could be sexist about Pocahontas' character: not much in terms of personality, but more in terms of her actions again. People complain when a minority woman (such as a Native American woman) falls in love with a white man, which she did. They feel like she's a traitor or submissive to white oppression—or that her life revolves around a man. But that's clearly not true considering the ending of the movie, where she chooses duty to her people over running off with her man. I don't know if I'm overlooking anything, but I don't think there's much argument about anything sexist in her character other than that.
Let me know if you have more thoughts! I'm enjoying this debate!
I like TV Ariel way better than movie Ariel. On the show, she was actually a lot like Pocahontas and always reaching out to disenfranchised, lonely sea creatures who need someone to befriend them and stand up for them. So it's a shame the show is supposed to be a prequel, because then it really *does* make it seem as though she got Eric-tunnel vision later on. But I suppose we can assume she still did those things and we just didn't' see them in the movie because it was supposed to be about their love story. Maybe she got a job on land as some kind of 18th-century, ex-mermaid equivalent of a social worker, ha (though she would have been royalty, so maybe she was just a very philanthropic/Lady Diana-esque princess?).
And you're definitely right that the classic DPs were flawless, and that it speaks to the sexist time in which they were created (women had to be happy all the time, good homemakers, etc.). In terms of popularity today, though, I feel like most younger women either don't like them, or only like them because they're so iconic and nostalgic. I mean, "a Cinderella story" is a widely used idiom, not "a Belle story." Just the fact that those characters have been around so long, and for people my age, they're the ones their parents grew up on and therefore shared with them, is what I think gives them most of their advantage.
She DID do fun things like diving, running, and exploring new people and things. But her actual personality, I can see, isn't fun per se.
I don't know if I'm overlooking anything, but I don't think there's much argument about anything sexist in her character other than that.
It's funny, because I know some people like that in real life. It seems to be a distinct personality type -- adventurous, athletic, outdoorsy, but very quiet and almost kind of boring when you actually just have to talk to the person.
True. I had a friend who travelled all throughout the year for his job, literally all over the world, Europe and South America mostly. You'd think someone like that would be so hip, worldly, and cosmopolitan.... Uh, no. Actually his demeanor and personality was totally dorky, plain, and kind of socially awkward. He's not a bad guy at all, but certainly not suave or well-liked. That's just how it is... your interests and pursuits don't necessarily compensate for your personality, you know? That's all.
I agree—with Pocahontas it was just a great fear of being politically incorrect—she WAS the first major female protagonist of color for Disney.
That's just how it is... your interests and pursuits don't necessarily compensate for your personality, you know?
Don't get me started.
Conversely, there are people who have the right "look"—i.e. a fun, engaging personality and/or trendy wardrobe that strikes others as "fun", so they must have great social lives, right? These people are often given a complete pass by observers simply because: they LOOK like they have "it". It totally chaps my ***, because many times it's completely false, and these "Fun"-looking people actually lead dull, ordinary lives.
This is part of a greater dialogue that has plagued me as an adult because—I know everyone says this but: I'm not the kind of person who can be judged that easily. Because I appear "serious/quiet" in repose, I'm often unfairly written off as conservative, close-minded, and inhibited. The irony is: I'm none of those things—no more than others. Believe me, as I've gotten older I see a prevalent truth: most people are not adventurous. They stick to their comfort zone. But people like me bear the brunt of this badge disproportionately!
The truth is, I do engage in "bold" activities (e.g. Karaoke!!!!) that belie my demeanor—often to the indignation of haters, naturally. I'm always proactive about trying new things—I've never been one to complain or mistrust the unfamiliar. But do I get credit for any of it? Nope. Not at all.
It's my lot in life. It sounds so self-important to claim it but I know it's true: I'm misunderstood, and it looks like I always will be. Sometimes it gets to me so much, that I even consider changing things like: Should I dress more "flashy" so people stop assuming I'm a party pooper? Should I talk more and be more "loud" in my daily life, so people stop assuming that I'm a wet blanket who's terrified to 'rock the boat'?
UGH. I know I veered off the original topic a bit. The moral is: people shouldn't judge others so superficially. We are all capable of having varied and disparate traits. In my experience, there are just way too many people who lack the mental abilities to comprehend this rather plausible truth. No wonder I have so little faith in humanity. Seriously.
Ha! I feel very misunderstood as well. With strangers, I'm pretty quiet, to the point that people have often thought I don't like them, and I suspect many think I'm a snob (perhaps this is in conjunction with the fact that I like to dress well for completely personal reasons and could give two bleeps what anyone else wears and don't judge them for it; still, I suspect it's one of those shallow-judgment things where it's easy to assume I look down on others).
It's frustrating and even kind of makes me sad at times, but I've come to realize many or even most people are pretty much just terrible judges of character. It's odd to me, because I feel like it's been proven time and again that I tend to be right about people, whether everyone likes someone and I suspect they're secretly a jerk or the other way around. But some people just don't have that instinct and, indeed, base their assessment of others' on largely superficial characteristics ("He/she is nice." Uh, yeah! How many people do you meet who are just openly jerks to your face from the start?!).
So you're right that all of this tangential personal stuff does actually kind of tie into the Pocahontas message. Maybe that's part of the reason we're such big fans!
I wouldn't have the gall to say I'm a good judge of character, personally. I've been known to make a few flubs, and moreover I just simply know that I am human and can make mistakes. But what affects me is that many times it's those who are BAD judges of character who are the most vocal. It's like that quote: "Stupid people are always sure of themselves. Smart people doubt themselves." Unfortunately, that is a prevalent truth in this world.
Also, what separates me from other people (to my annoyance!) is that I don't go around categorizing other people to a stifling degree. I recognize the versatility that is possible in personality because–I recognize it in MYSELF. I know I cannot be judged by appearances, so I expect the same in others theoretically.
It's too bad we don't live in a world that is more like this. This has literally been one of the biggest lessons I've learned as an adult. Obviously, I knew this theory was possible even as a kid. But it's not the same thing when you grow up and experience it in real life—repeatedly! To paraphrase it, it's disheartening when you realize the limits of the world and human existence. It's a stone cold sober realization, and it can be the root of all the discord and malaise in life. How can I be content in this world when I know many, many people will mistreat me in this way?
I happen to prefer Ariel from the TV show as well. As you said, it's ironic that it's supposed to be a prequel to the movie, when in fact Ariel seemed more mature and smarter in that show (and we'll suppose that she was younger then). In fact, Ariel comes across as a superior character and shows more warmth, strength and affection towards others. Though I've ranted about Ariel in the movie, it's a pity that the movie actually never enhances her strengths other than her teenage rebellion (it's not as Ariel is a horrible as she sounds; It's just that besides her perky charm, she's mostly a self-centered, naive and utterly obsessed teenage girl who mostly shows concern about her goals and wants).
shareActually, Ariel kept doing lots of naive teenager things in the TV show as well.
So I wouldn't say that she was as "mature" and "superior" as some people say.
And people just keep forgetting that Ariel in the movie did things like saving Eric's life twice!
But I can agree that the TV show allowed her to deal with several different issues.
Which made it possible for the writers to give her a more complex personality than the movie could.
Alright, fair enough. Ariel`s other sides were more expanded in the TV series, in my opinion, though.
shareGood God! BREVITY is the soul of wit. Verbosity is not.
shareI think Belle (despite that I like her a lot) is a flawed character. Regardless of all her strengths. She deliberately disobeyed the Beast by sneaking into the West Wing and does expose the Beast to Gaston and the villagers without thinking of the following consequences (yes, she was in a lot of pressure, but exposing the Beast would've let to his demise). Otherwise, I see why you label Belle as as a goody-two shoes, but at least Belle had a likability, kindness, self-respect and inner beauty (ignore the pun) to make her appealing. She was beautiful on the inside as well on the outside.
Jasmine is unfortunately hampered by being deliberately reduced to a less active character than Aladdin, which I consider it to be a pity. I understand why people find her whiny and off-putting, but regardless of how she is in the movie, she's waaaay worse in the TV show, where she truly could be a whiny brat at times (though to be fair, there were times where Jasmine were being strong and engaging, but unfortunately she was a brat as well). At least Jasmine had a strong, engaging voice (in the American version), but lacked a real personality. Despite that she did have her moments of kindness.
Megara is engaging and fun in her own right and she's a departure from all of her peers; A snarky, cynical screwball comedy baby and far from an innocent, wholesome Mary Sue. However, that is also her biggest fault; She's too cynical at times and rarely shows kindness until the very end (though of course that was her arc, but still).
I think Belle (despite that I like her a lot) is a flawed character. Regardless of all her strengths. She deliberately disobeyed the Beast by sneaking into the West Wing and does expose the Beast to Gaston and the villagers without thinking of the following consequences (yes, she was in a lot of pressure, but exposing the Beast would've let to his demise). Otherwise, I see why you label Belle as as a goody-two shoes, but at least Belle had a likability, kindness, self-respect and inner beauty (ignore the pun) to make her appealing. She was beautiful on the inside as well on the outside.
Jasmine is unfortunately hampered by being deliberately reduced to a less active character than Aladdin, which I consider it to be a pity. I understand why people find her whiny and off-putting, but regardless of how she is in the movie, she's waaaay worse in the TV show, where she truly could be a whiny brat at times (though to be fair, there were times where Jasmine were being strong and engaging, but unfortunately she was a brat as well). At least Jasmine had a strong, engaging voice (in the American version), but lacked a real personality. Despite that she did have her moments of kindness.
"I don't see how Belle could have forseen that Gaston would lead a mob against the castle though. She was only desperate to prove that her father wasn't insane and shouldn't be institutionalized."
Fair enough.
"I don't remember that Jasmine was ever a whiny brat..."
Well, okay. We can agree to disagree. I felt that she was whiny during her assertive moments.
The score of "Pocahontas" is one of the reasons why I love it too; It's simply amazing at it's very best and frankly I consider it to be Menken's very best score (though his scores for his previous works were good as well, "Pocahontas" outshines them). "Hunchback's" score is good too, but frankly I gravitate to "Pocahontas'" score.
It's funny how both movies really are similar in terms of genocide against the non-white race and the the villains are of white race (yes, I'm talking about both Ratcliffe and Frollo), who wants to wipe out the opposite race. Though in "Hunchback" is never exactly a war (since the whites actually have superior forces than the gypsies), it's still about persecution. At least "Pocahontas" does build up to a war between the races and the conflict is genuine between both races (who legitimately fear each other for obvious reasons), whereas in "Hunchback" the gypsies are the innocent, persecuted race (it baffles me that "Hunchback" actually sanitizes and purifies the gypsies and portrays them as the innocent victims, while the portrayal of the gypsies was never made a fuzz about, though don't get me the wrong way). Wonder if the creators of both movies saw the similarities.
In fact, "Mulan" is similar to "Pocahontas" that it builds to an actual war between two races, but at least "Mulan" portrays the invaders as the evil antagonists and the Chinese as the vice versa. "Mulan" is even less politically correct on that issue and it was never made a fuzz about
It is a pity, but that's the result of having a less popular movie, though.
shareI understand why Pocahontas and Esmeralda can be labeled as unrelatable due to them being arche/stereotypes who never shows their some true, inner turmoils. However, I don't think those reasons makes them unrelatble. Esmeralda does have her moments of weaknesses and fears, especially when Frollo is suggesting her when she's going to get burned. Esmeralda definitively shows frustration when she realizes that she's captured in the Cathedral and frankly I liked that God Help The Outcast were about her selflessness. It truly showed the lenghts of affection that she would go.
Pocahontas may be too goody-two shoes at times, but she certainly has her moments of doubt and insecurity. Especially when John Smith is captured. But Pocahontas is devoided for the recklessness and foolish faults which Esmeralda has. Besides, she also makes a huge sacrifice. The fact that she realizes that she's needed with her people rather than traveling with her seriously injured love interest makes her a quite admirable character. And of course letting him go was something that truly affected her. So if you'll choose to interpret it that way she was relatable in that sense.
But thanks for agreeing with me about Esmeralda's flaws.
It's interesting that some people would label Pocahontas "goody two shoes"; an online reviewer who did video reviews of the entire Disney canon called her a "Mary Sue"—which I presume means a boringly flawless character.
While I agree that she was a product of political correctness and therefore devoid of a true rounded "personality" so to speak, I have a different definition of goody two shoes/Mary Sue—and wouldn't place her under them: cheesy, conventional, a follower.
Pocahontas is none of those things. Sure, she's not as wreckless, selfish or aggressive as the other Disney female leads (Ariel, Jasmine, Esmeralda, etc..) therefore not as fun to watch—but she's edgy in her own ways: she goes against her father's wishes, her best friend, her whole tribe.
Anyway, that's just my two cents. I'm grateful for our discussion here!
I'm not trying to nitpick, but Esmeralda had her moments of insecurities and fears. When she was running off the guards the first sequence we saw her. When she realized that Quasi's face was no mask, she was genuinely stunned (though it was thrown away afterwards). She was insecure about Phoebus' intentions when he followed her into the Cathedral (yeah, she attacked him, but still she was insecure). And when she was harassed by Frollo and when Quasi took her down the Cathedral. When Phoebus saved the miller's family, she was clearly fearing for his safety and when she was trying to save him, she was panting of fear to get caught. And what about when Frollo approached her before burning her? She was terrified.
So yeah, perhaps Esmeralda was not as vulnerable and showed her humanity in the same ways as Mulan, who was allowed to be a character who showed her human insecurity, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Esmeralda was an immortal wonder-woman who was devoid of fear and insecurity. Esmeralda did have her moments of fear as well.
Sorry to nitpick, but technically Tiger Lily from "Peter Pan" was the first Native American Princess from Disney.
shareNot sure who I prefer of the two, but the big difference with Esmeralda the captain that she fall in love with was not the main male character in the movie, and being just friends with the main male character? I wonder if Disney caught this when making the two movies. I haven't watched Pochontas in a very long time. I would think at the time the two stories existed that shoes didn't even exist yet. Another difference is that Pochontas sang quite a few songs in her movie where Esmeralda only had one. One more big difference is I don't think Radcliffe even wanted to marry Pochontas, nor I don't think he even liked her, and Esmeralda had Frollo that wanted to marry her.
shareI would think at the time the two stories existed that shoes didn't even exist yet.
and Esmeralda had Frollo that wanted to marry her.
Not sure who I prefer of the two, but the big difference with Esmeralda the captain that she fall in love with was not the main male character in the movie, and being just friends with the main male character? I wonder if Disney caught this when making the two movies.
I would prefer Pocahontas do you think John Smith and Phoebus were similar? They were both blond and both very attractive.
shareI would prefer Pocahontas do you think John Smith and Phoebus were similar? They were both blond and both very attractive.
I always thought it was strange that Disney followed up John Smith in Pocahontas, with another blond man who looked similar to him! (Phoebus).
Honestly, I think Phoebus has a better personality than Smith. I loved the Pocahontas movie, but even I admit that Smith was a boring character lol... I mean, it was wasted potential because Smith clearly led an interesting life (all those travels), yet his actual personality was stiff and dull in the movie.
I agree that Phoebus is, as a whole, a more engaging character than Smith and more likable. I find Smith to be underrated and overlooked, due to I honestly think that he does have his moments where he shows personality. But Phoebus is, all in all, superior.
shareI would prefer Pocahontas do you think John Smith and Phoebus were similar? They were both blond and both very attractive.
lol, that's the best comment i've heard this year! :P
And this is the perfect response to that comment lol!
The commentator must've not been paying attention to either of these films—'cause there's plenty of characters who wear SHOES in both movies lol.
lol, that's the best comment i've heard this year! :P
And this is the perfect response to that comment lol!
The commentator must've not been paying attention to either of these films—'cause there's plenty of characters who wear SHOES in both movies lol.
"Not sure who I prefer of the two"
so why did u answer?
"but the big difference with Esmeralda the captain that she fall in love with was not the main male character in the movie, and being just friends with the main male character? I wonder if Disney caught this when making the two movies."
yes, they did. it was even intentional. cuz unlike urself, de creators at disney aren`t complete idiots who doesn`t think through de details of their stories.
Pocahontas. I still liked Esmeralda though.
[deleted]
No offense, but that wasn't an exact answer to my question. You never answered why you prefer Poca over Esme.
share[deleted]
OK, fine.
shareI had my reservations towards Esmeralda at first. When I saw Hunchback when I was 11 or 12, I just found her to be bitchy at first. I like her more now as I said.
Esmeralda hands down, even though I do like Pocahontas.
I think a lot of you are forgetting is that in order to survive living on the streets of Paris, Esmeralda NEEDED to act overtly strong, so that she wasn't taken advantage of. She was an outcast, so she had to learn to handle her own.
And honestly, I don't think Esmeralda even realized that Quasimodo had romantic feelings for her. I think she viewed him more like an innocent child which, to an extent, he was emotionally. Due to his ridiculously sheltered upbringing, Quasimodo did not have as much emotional maturity as most 20 year olds.
And honestly, I don't think Esmeralda even realized that Quasimodo had romantic feelings for her. I think she viewed him more like an innocent child which, to an extent, he was emotionally.
I don't consider it to be a flaw that she actually kissed him on the cheek on it's own merits. But I would prefer if it was a genuine kiss with caring affection, not a kiss that was meant to melt him to get her way.
shareAnd honestly, I don't think Esmeralda even realized that Quasimodo had romantic feelings for her. I think she viewed him more like an innocent child which, to an extent, he was emotionally. Due to his ridiculously sheltered upbringing, Quasimodo did not have as much emotional maturity as most 20 year olds.
I have to differ a bit... kissing a GROWN man on the cheek like that is pushing it, even if he is someone who is allegedly suffering from arrested development due to his lifestyle. Esmeralda can't be THAT dense.
No, she was obviously not that dense. Esmeralda was a smart and mature woman. Her kiss was obviously meant to soft him, so she knew that she could use her flirting to get a way.
share[deleted]
I would obviously say Esmeralda is prettier!
shareIndeed. Though Pocahontas is attractive and beautiful on her own right, Esmeralda is a far prettier character. Esmeralda's features are more classic and conventional in terms of classic beauty, whereas Pocahontas' features are more unique and exotic. She can look too stoic and unattractive drawn wrongly, but she does look stunning at her best.
shareEsmeralda is simply more beautiful.
shareEsmeralda, hands, face, and boobs down, ass up.
Yum.