How did Pocahontas (1995) get away with it?

H

harmonica44

Usually when it comes to movies based on true tragic stories, especially ones where people are killed in battle, almost no audiences, want to see it portrayed in a Disney movie, with the harsh material toned down to a childrens level. If Disney made a toned down movie version of United 93, Titanic, or a movie with the battle of Normandy for example, where no one would die in it, most audiences would not go for it. However Pocahontas seems to be the exemption that you can take a true story tragedy and Disney-fy it with mostly positive audience reception. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
So if Titanic was a cartoon and no one died, or if United 93 were a cartoon where no one died, it would still be good? I can see some audiences being offended by that, and not wanna show their kids. But for some reason Pocahontas still got the parents rolling their kids in the theater. It's just a questionable choice for Disney to make a kids movie out of a real war tragedy, especially since they choose not to do that often.
 
Well there are hardly any childrens movies based off true war stories, or other true stories of people being killed in battle. There is no Disney version of true stories like, Titanic, United 93, or Rwanda, the Sierra Leone Civil War, that was portrayed in Blood Diamond, etc. Why is Pocahontas the only one then for childrens entertainment?
 
harmonica44 said:
So if Titanic was a cartoon and no one died, or if United 93 were a cartoon where no one died, it would still be good? I can see some audiences being offended by that, and not wanna show their kids. But for some reason Pocahontas still got the parents rolling their kids in the theater. It's just a questionable choice for Disney to make a kids movie out of a real war tragedy, especially since they choose not to do that often.
Click to expand...

A lot of it has to do with timeframe. Titanic was less than 100 years ago, so it's still relatively fresh, but I think you could probably get away with not showing anyone dying in a cartoon version.

United 93 was 10 years ago, so that one is still too fresh, and people would be offended. But again, that one isn't a kids' story by any means, and I don't think it ever will be. (Personally, I refuse to watch the movie at all, since I feel like it was just studios cashing in on tragedy, period.)

Disney isn't exactly known for realism in their films, anyway.

ETA: The Pocahontas story took place so long ago that no one alive has any first, second, or third hand knowledge of the events, so it's easy to fictionalize it.
 
harmonica44 said:
Well there are hardly any childrens movies based off true war stories, or other true stories of people being killed in battle. There is no Disney version of, Titanic, United 93, or Hotel Rwanda, etc. Why is Pocahontas the only one then for childrens entertainment?
Click to expand...

Because Pocahontas is a fun name and Hotel Rawanda isn't.

As long as we are on the subject. I'm going to write a letter, in protest, to try and get Barney thrown off the air. He is obviously a FAKE dinosaur.

Man I wish someone would make a disney cartoon about Auschwitz....????
 
cameronchapman said:
A lot of it has to do with timeframe. Titanic was less than 100 years ago, so it's still relatively fresh, but I think you could probably get away with not showing anyone dying in a cartoon version.

United 93 was 10 years ago, so that one is still too fresh, and people would be offended. But again, that one isn't a kids' story by any means, and I don't think it ever will be. (Personally, I refuse to watch the movie at all, since I feel like it was just studios cashing in on tragedy, period.)

Disney isn't exactly known for realism in their films, anyway.

ETA: The Pocahontas story took place so long ago that no one alive has any first, second, or third hand knowledge of the events, so it's easy to fictionalize it.
Click to expand...

When you say United 93 isn't a kids movie by any means, what makes Pocahontas one? It was a true story, with true murder, and acts of war, so what makes it more for kids than other examples?

Plus I think that a lot of the flak United 93 got, is not warranted once you see the movie. That's an example of portraying a tragedy with lots of depth without exploiting it. If you can watch the true stories of other tragedy movies, then United 93 is no different, at least not when I compare it to other well told true story tragedies. Pocahontas was much more exploitative by comparison, and more of a cash in. Just because it took place a longer time ago, does not mean it's not more exploitative.
 
Last edited:
Bambi's mother died and so did, Lion Kings papa. What about the sexuality in Hunchback and Aladdin? There are a lot of things Disney can do solely because its a cartoon.

You're talking about stories that have relatively sad endings and extreme amounts of real violence and death. That can't be shown to kids aged at Disney's ideal target. You could probably make a cartoon version of those tragic events you mentioned but honestly, they'd be less of a story if the violence and death were moth toned down.
 
That's what I mean though. Less of a story. Somehow Pocahontas was still well received even though it too is less of story, cause the violence was toned down per say. I guess I'm just seeing as much of a distinction, as everyone else. A lot of the points that were made are kind of double standard-ish, when you compare them to other movies, respectfully of course.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
That's what I mean though. Less of a story. Somehow Pocahontas was still well received even though it too is less of story, cause the violence was toned down per say. I guess I'm just seeing as much of a distinction, as everyone else. A lot of the points that were made are kind of double standard-ish, when you compare them to other movies, respectfully of course.
Click to expand...

There's definitely a double standard. Tragedy that's happened recently has a much greater impact on our psyches than tragedy that happened hundreds of years ago. It's easier to gloss over (or erase entirely) the bad parts of things that happened centuries ago, because no one actually remembers it happening. That's not true of things that happened in the past 80-100 years or so, because either people remember directly, or they heard first-hand accounts of it.

I've never seen Pocahontas, but honestly, every Disney movie glosses over the unpleasantness of whatever story they're telling, whether it's based in fact or not. That's what Disney's entire business has been built around. Have you ever read the fairytales many Disney movies are based on?
 
CHamburger said:
Bambi's mother died and so did, Lion Kings papa. What about the sexuality in Hunchback and Aladdin? There are a lot of things Disney can do solely because its a cartoon.
Click to expand...


Even though its fiction, the book had some pretty grim parts based on historical fact. Rape torture etc. I don't think those made it into Hunchback, and it was successful. So I guess Poca. isn't the only one.
 
Yea I read the original book. Pretty rough. I think it just depends on the story being warped. 9/11 could not be a disney movie, the crusades? totally. Maybe it is as cam says, the historical significance relative to toady's generation of disney watchers.
 
Your question is a bit moronic. The audience demographic is entirely different; Disney audiences are three to about ten years old, so the story choices are made with that in mind. Parents do not want their children exposed to sex, death and violence, all of the things that are de riguer in indie filmmaking. Disney is a business, making a product, and they know exactly how to make/produce their product for maximum financial return. That's something that many indie filmmakers neglect, they don't target a specific audience. As much as I dislike them that's why Zombie and similar genres do well, there's a built-in audience.

The Pocahontas story was so watered down it was almost unrecognizable. About all that was left were the names of the characters. I seriously doubt she had a relationship with a raccoon, unless it was to kill and eat it, and use the skin for something.

Disney does manage to kill quite a few characters. The wicked queen in "Sleeping Beauty", Gaston in "Beauty and the Beast", Mufassah and Scar in "The Lion King", Pearl in "Finding Nemo", there are many more.
 
True Disney does kill some but not to the extent that happened in some of the real material there watered down stories are based on. Yeah that's true, kids don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top