Was Pocahontas really that bad?

Is there any valid criticism of this movie that doesn't boil down to the "historical inaccuracy therefore bad" mindset?
It's Disney, they're known for making things easier to digest for their audience, why is it so abhorrent here?

Attached: 73219.jpg (1500x2234, 1.62M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DSfYrPdTKVA&ab_channel=WaltDisneyDude
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Even if you put aside all of the more political or historical criticisms it's still one of the least memorable Disney movies for a reason, it's just a mediocre story with bland characters

I didn't mind it. Certainly engaged me more than Hunchback

I think it serves its purpose pretty well honestly: a love story set in early colonial period of North America's history, with the lovers being from opposing factions a la Romeo and Juliet. Ratcliffe was fittingly bombastic and slimey for a Disney movie, even if his motivations were pretty shallow.
The nature spirit hoodoo was a little grating, but other than that the characterization of the natives was as respectable as one could expect at the time.

Not bad, just one of the least remembered films of the rennasance era, also infamously historically inaccurate that they tried to fix in the DTV sequel but only made things more awkward. also this should have actually had talking animals due to the films theme

This is basically like making a movie about Anne Frank marrying a nazi and using Cabbalah magic against her own people.

It was one of the few disney movies I kinda liked as kid. Hated most of them, the only exceptions were this, Hercules and Hunchback of Notre Dame. Didn't even know it was unpopular.

>Boring protagonist
>boring love interest
>boring villain
>And of course, the romanticization of native genocide and rape to sone degree

>Native Americans constitute a single racial/ethnic group
>the consequences of moving in too quickly equate to active genocide
>uses a fucking victim of war rather than a simple interpreter
user please think before you post next time

>Didn't even know it was unpopular.
Looked down upon might be more accurate. The only reason I ever see it brought up is to mock it/point out the historical revisionism in a goddamn Disney movie

>And of course, the romanticization of native genocide and rape to sone degree
damn i never thought of it like that.
pocahontas is based.

This. Bad movies are at least memorable. This one is pretty much just by the numbers.

I would still watch Pocahontas over any of those charmless Disney wannabes from that era ( Anastasia or Prince of Egypt, to name some examples ) It's a flawed and innacurate film, but still a Reinassance one

It’s not just historical inaccuracies, it’s lionizing a murder-hobo and introduces stupid elements like the magic talking tree that can translate languages and toy bait like the raccoon, hummingbird and pug which add nothing to the story.

>Certainly engaged me more than Hunchback.
Neck yourself

It's Disney, a company known for altering the source material to suit the narrative of their story. Why would this, based in actual history or not, be any different?
Also
>murder hobo

I think the whole moral angle of it feels really heavy-handed/over-the-top to the point of being unintentionally funny, like even taken in relation to other kids' movies + ignoring the RL history aspect. Ex. Savages is pretty funny

I also don't think it has a ton of really memorable moments compared to some other Disney stuff. Like I can remember the plot, but not really anything I thought was especially unique or interesting. I guess the music's decent overall?

On the whole, I'm not even sure I'd really call it "bad," maybe more like solidly average/mediocre. Like you could put it on and not feel like you wasted your time watching it, but afterward you won't really remember it or want to return to it again.

Is there any valid praise of this movie?

>>the consequences of moving in too quickly equate to active genocide
What do you think happened to the Native Americans, user?

The Movies Sucked but that wont stop them from remaking it.

Some allied with colonists to drive rival groups out, others suffered from disease, both intentionally and non. How each group was affected kind of needs to be taken on its own merits.
That does make me wonder how things would've gone had we met them before the mounds were abandoned and the groups that used them were dissolved.

Attached: Cahokia-Michael-Hampshire-painting-1150.jpg (1600x604, 985.36K)

Yeah, it sucked so no one liked it. There's your valid criticism. Fucking nerd.

If only Anne Frank had married a true son of Virginia, then maybe she'd still be alive.

As our state motto goes: THUS ALWAYS TO TYRANTS!

Attached: Knights in Grey.jpg (3500x2400, 830.16K)

I can't imagine a worse take. You have a retarded soul.

As a Virginian and descendant of both the original white settlers and Powhatan Indians (not at all uncommon in this state), I absolutely despise this movie but not for its portrayal of Pocohantas, but of John Ratcliffe

>In December 1609, Ratcliffe and 14 fellow colonists were invited to a gathering with the tribe of Powhatan Indians. The Powhatans promised the starving colonists would be given corn, but it was a trap. The colonists were ambushed. Ratcliffe suffered a particularly gruesome fate: he was tied to a stake in front of a fire. Women removed the skin from his entire body with mussel shells and tossed the pieces into the flame as he watched. They skinned his face last and finally burned him at the stake. This story was documented in an eyewitness account that is included in The Jamestown Adventure: Accounts of the Virginia Colony, 1605–1614 (Real Voices, Real History), edited by Ed Southern.
>...when the sly old King espied a fitting time, cut them all off, only surprised Captain Ratcliffe alive, who he caused to be bound unto a tree naked with a fire before, and by women his flesh was scraped from his bones with mussel shells, and, before his face, thrown into the fire, and so for want of circumspection miserably perished.

Attached: The Professor from Virginia.jpg (513x600, 151.62K)

The soundtrack is great, at least.

Jesus fucking christ, now this is the shit no one mentions.

The movie is kinda meh, I did like the Mine song though. If there is ever a perfect Orange Lantern song, that would be it.

youtube.com/watch?v=DSfYrPdTKVA&ab_channel=WaltDisneyDude

Mine, Mine, Mine is the worst villain song of the Renaissance, though

How did this get made, especially when you consider and all the other historical things? Like it's one thing to take from a fairy tale and alter it to be sanitized, but this feels like a step closer to those Titanic animated films.