answer this question

Disney Princess Question

What went wrong with "Pocahontas"?, and why/how did it push away interest in WDAS?

There is common knowledge that the Disney Renaissance and traditional animation took a dent with this film, which I somewhat agree with. The best of the best were working on this film, and the others were working on "The Lion King", which grossed over $700 million in 1994. The company was on top again, and they were kind of running a formula with "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin", and "The lion King", which they used in Pocahontas to guarantee a big hit; do you think that this film destroyed the famous Disney formula? I think that is a part of it, but I know that there are others. The studio was not releasing flops at this point in time, (which they would be in 5-10 years); I just think it was a bump in the road, not the killer of people's interest in WDAS and Traditional Animation. So, I am practically asking why is the film no very good and why/did it kill people's interest in Traditional Animation and WDAS?
What went wrong with "Pocahontas"?, and why/how did it push away interest in WDAS?
 Jayden-G posted over a year ago
next question »

Disney Princess Answers

maryksand said:
There are legitimate issues with the movie in regards to representation of Native American culture seeing as it largely oversimplified and overmysticized it, in addition to taking the (admittedly tragic) life of an actual person as a base for their romance driven story that had nothing to do with accurately reflecting the historical context (worked quite well for Don Bluth's Anastasia though, however, Pocahontas is a vastly different case seeing as the primary conflict of the plot was specifically designed to revolve around an incredibly touchy subject such as oppression and invasion of Native Americans and their land rather than borrowing creative ideas from a certain isolated historical incident). Personally, I prefer Pocahontas as a movie to Lion King by miles (and yes, I'm well aware of it being an immensely unpopular opinion). As a protagonist, Pocahontas demonstrates a sufficient amount of traits and qualities that make her the closest to representing a flawed, struggling human being. Her often confused, indecisive attitude makes her significantly more relatable than certain princesses that are written specifically to respond to all the outer/external factors instantly and in a way that the audience would admire their comprehension skills (i.e Mulan, Belle, Rapunzel, Tiana). Factions of the audience were unwilling to embrace a new formula not particulary prominent or common for Disney and accept a strong female character who doesn't end up in a traditional marriage (with it being presented in a far more consistent and effortfully structured way than the entire Merida's arc). The movie's flaws ended up being too glaring to overlook and it's positive innovations and challenging nature of certain storylines didn't sit well with people who expected a more traditional approach towards the concept of Disney Princess movie.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
I don't think that "actual person" aspect would have cause so much critic if the movie in itself had been better. They should have thought a little bit out of the box and created a movie without a villlain, because, seriously, the story doesn't need one, people of two entirely different cultures encountering each other would have been enough conflict. And I agree, they oversimplified. They should have adressed at one point what the foreign influence might do to the native culture.
Swanpride posted over a year ago
*
I agree with the both of you. I prefer Pocahontas over The Lion King too, but I know The Lion King is a way better film. Now that I think about it, they oversimplified a lot in Pocahontas. The native culture is underplayed, the tension between the whites and natives are underplayed, Pocahontas and john's relationship is underplayed, John's development occurs through "Colors of the Wind". I don't know if anyone notices this, but this film is extremely short (like 1 hour and 10 minutes maximum). They should have added more culture, and time do Pocahontas and John's relationship, tension between the natives and whites, and the native culture. They could have made John a bit more interesting too. An extra 15 minutes could have made this film Disney's Best. Such wasted potential
Jayden-G posted over a year ago
*
It's not my implications but the issues pointed out by people who considered it racist. As a white person it's not my place to tell them they are wrong if they felt like it was problematic. Same applies to Pocahontas, just because I personally don't thin fiction should reflect reality in the first place doesn't mean native Americans are not entitled to addressing their issues with the movie. Both movies are problematic in regards to storyline development as well, Pocahontas just happened to contain specific flaws that put a large segment of the audience off the movie.
maryksand posted over a year ago
Swanpride said:
On the most basic level: Pocahontas just has a very bland and very overdone story, and it just lacks a "stand-out" character...neither the villain nor Pocahontas herself are particularly creative, the only thing which really stands out is the animation, and that is a little bit problematic, too, because a lot of people have a hard time to appreciate it whenever Disney movies away from the "house style".
There were other aspects, though...for one, Disney just overused the formula. I like the DP movies, but when every single movie Disney does is that way, it becomes too much at one point. After Lion King, Disney should have done something entirely different, as some sort of breather, they should have experimented, instead they stuck with repeating the same stuff again and again. It was not Pocahontas alone, it was all the movies which came later on, too. By the time Disney started to think outside the box, it was too late. At the point, Pixar already had the reputation of making the unusual animated movies.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
I agree with you 100%. With the Golden, Silver and Dark Eras, they never really stuck with a specific formula until the Renaissance. After Pocahontas, they did have a lot of unnecessary sidekicks (Gargoyles in Hunchback, Tantor and Terk in Tarzan, Cricket in Mulan, don't know about Hercules) So, they should have branched out with the musicals (they should have done what they did with Tarzan in Hunchback or something to give it a break) At the same time, if they released Atlantis or Treasure Planet, I don't think this drills would have done any better than they did in the early 2000s. The rise of Pixar definitely had a part in it, but in the late 90s, there was still room for both. I think they should have made Pocahontas a bit more adult like what they did with The Lion King. They really wanted to tell big stories with Pocahontas, Hunchback, Mulan, and Tarzan, but they should have made them a bit more adult and serious (I still like those movies though). This formula thing is why I am worried about Frozen
Jayden-G posted over a year ago
next question »