DVDizzy Forum

John289 wrote:But does anyone feel that Mulan is a better disney epic than Pocahontas? a better heroine, more emotion, better humor and more adventure.

Funny you bring that up, because I always thought that Pocahontas was actually the better of the two. It stays true to its dramatic tone while Mulan starts off dramatic (a direction I enjoyed) and after she runs away it's all about the Eddy Murphy comedy. At least the ending returns to its original tone.

John289 wrote:But does anyone feel that Mulan is a better disney epic than Pocahontas? a better heroine, more emotion, better humor and more adventure.

Really can't say I feel the same. "Pocahontas" features better animation (it's rich with detail and maintains a very realistic look - notice how, in contrast with Mulan, the supporting characters are drawn with great detail), the songs are better (C'mon, how could anything from "Mulan" top a song like "Colors of the Wind"?). Or maybe it's just me, 'cause I didn't really like Mulan's character as well - the sidekicks were better.

John289 wrote:But does anyone feel that Mulan is a better disney epic than Pocahontas? a better heroine, more emotion, better humor and more adventure.

I think Mulan is better than Pocahontas. For one Mulan stays rather true to chinese culture(a first for Disney! ) while Pocahontas is mostly made up. The songs in Mulan were better than Pocahontas. They were more fun to hear than Pocahontas and I didn't care for "Colors of the Wind" as most people and thought it stole Toy Story's Oscar. Plus Mulan was exciting and funny. Aside from Meeko there isn't anything that funny in Pocahontas and nothing too exciting either. And also Mulan has a very cool villian! Pocahontas doesn't really have a villian.

Timon/Pumba fan wrote:I think Mulan is better than Pocahontas. For one Mulan stays rather true to chinease culture(a first for Disney! ) while Pocahontas is mostly made up.

Well, you're comparing historical accuracy with faithfulness to a legend. And many people took issue with the rather generic Asian treatment that the makers of <i>Mulan</i> depicted Chinese culture with, nonetheless.

I like Pocahontas, but not love it those darn leaves annoy the heck out of me. but it's a really beautiful film in a lot respects.

I actually love POCAHONTAS. It's massively underrated in my opinion.

I like Pocahontas, I thought it was great. It sure as hell was a damn sight better than The Lion King!

John289 wrote:It was good and had some great songs, beautiful artwork but it was kinda untrue to the real story, neverthless it was a fun movie that i have on DVD and the ending was sad.

But does anyone feel that Mulan is a better disney epic than Pocahontas? a better heroine, more emotion, better humor and more adventure.

Yeah, that's quite true...At least it is not so sickly-sweet and has no hidden erotic plot(probably this is a misused word, just couldn't find an interactive dic, hope you'll understand what I mean) Pocahontas is still very good,indeed, but Mulan has something that Pocahontas hasn't for sure. Anyway, this discussion seems to wind around attempts to compare and contrast a pineapple and a cucumber :)They are different, their personalities are different, even the ideas of the movies differ from each other.

I don't like my original post (made before I really matured as a conversationalist).

I really like and deeply respect this film. And the whole History Vs. Disney thing that people use as an excuse to bash this film is really pathetic. For a few surprising reasons that I'm not sure people are aware of.

First of all - what Pocahontas did was not new. A film changing the history of it's subject is a lot like a film adapting a book/novel. People can feel anyway they want to feel about it, but in the end, film and literature are 2 different things. Any film is likely to rub one either the right or wrong way, but claiming the film is poor simply upon the merits of the book is rubbish. And the same thing goes for the historical background of Pocahontas, the other characters in the film, and the events that transpired in the story. The film operates on it's own terms. It's not the exact, 100% true story of Pocahontas the Native American. It's a story about the power of love, courage, and human understanding. You basically have to approach the film as though every character and event were being created, brand new, on the spot.

Secondly - this is Disney. And this is not new for Disney. Not now, not in 1995. Was Peter Pan accurately depicting Native American tribes? Did Melody Time accurately depict the story of Buffalo Bill? Was that film also accurate in depicting how the Red Man and the White Man miraculously and immediately settled their differences, became friendly, and had big eating and dancing gatherings together? Or for that matter, wasn't it just as big a crime that their fairy tale adaptations don't end the way they do in the traditional stories? Remember what originally happened to Cinderella's wicked stepsisters - did that happen in Disney's version?

The important thing for the film was that they told a great story. Not that they told it as accurately as some, or even most, expected or demanded.

Then, let's not also forget the quality of the film as a visual work of art. The colors, backgrounds, and things I'm not even qualified to describe, were simple, pure visual genius. Ground-breaking, etc. Pocahontas is a strong film, in all areas of storytelling and art / entertainment.

It's an "ok" movie to me. The music is definitely one of it's high points but the characters didn't appeal to me much.

Pocahontas has never been one of my favorites, but it's still good, and I thik there are a lot of people who loe the movie. What I like about Pocahontas is the really wonderful music that I used to sing along to a lot when I was a kid.
Colors of the wind is one of the best Disney songs ever, very intense and wonderful, poetic lyrics. I also like (and I couldn't appreciate that as a kid) that the movie deals with something historical, and that this story really happened. Another thing that I can appreciate now as I'm older is that Disney didn't try to make a happy-end. They left it as it was, which was something kind of new in the Disney Universe.
Oh, yeah, and John Smith is hot.

What makes me not like this movie so much as others is Pocahontas herself, I never really liked her character, and I don't even know why. I never really liked her sidekicks as well, and the villain was boring.
I never was much into the whole Native American stuff, so I maybe never really got the point of the movie. As a kid the end feaked me out. Why would she let him go, if she loved him? It still does freak me out, because I just love happy endings.
Pocahontas' father always reminded me too much of Triton, so in my opinion his character is lame.
There are a lot more pros for this movie, but still I never liked it too much.

This is probably one of my least favorite disney films. What makes it worse is how inaccurate it is. But then again so are a lot of Disney films. the only good part would have to be the songs.

Pocahontas is not one of my favorite Disney animated features, but I like things about it, and it contains one of my favorite songs. In my opinion, "Just Around the Riverbend" is a classic, and Judy Kuhn's interpretation is spot on. I get chills every time I listen to it, and I have it on my MP3 player.

The big problem that I have with the film is getting past the historical inaccuracies. I realize that it was not meant to be a documentary, and I actually like the suggestion of a love story between Pocahontas and Captain John Smith. However, like someone posted earlier, we all study Virginia history in school, and Pocahontas is an important part of that history. I think my bias is compounded by the fact that I am a lifelong resident of Virginia. If you've been to Jamestown, you realize that we don't have stunning mountains, cliffs, ponderosa pines, and beautiful cascading waterfalls in the Jamestown area. The whole time I watched Pocahontas, I was extremely distracted by the stunning scenery, because that scenery sure isn't in the real Jamestown area. I felt like the scenery was more appropriate to a Lewis & Clark expedition. I also agree with Loomis' statement that the movie was bland because it tried so hard not to offend anyone.

When I first saw the film, I enjoyed it, but couldn't fully appreciate because I was comparing it to the Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and the Little Mermaid. However, a couple of years ago I watched it again and fell in love with it. It's not as good as the others from that generation, but it is still amazing and highly underrated. So many people keep saying one of their main problems with it is that it's historically inaccurate. I can understand the frustration with it, but we have to remember this isn't a documentary.

At first I did not really care for Pocahontas, but after watching it again a couple years ago I started to really love it. I think Pocahontas is one of the more underrated of all the Disney movies. The music is absolutely wonderful, one of Alan Menkin's best works, and the animation I think is really spectacular.

I like Pocahontas very much. I've always loved it since I was a child and I never thought of comparing it to its predecessors because it's not better or worse than them: it's just diferrent. Although the previous 3 (except The Lion King that I can't appreciate that much because no matter how great it is, it's still a movie with talking/singing lions ) are my all-time favourites (TLM, Aladdin, B&B), Pocahontas has a sweet melancholy and a glorious feeling that I cannot find in another Disney film. It's her eyes, her hair, the rock, the wind, the forbidden kiss, Kokoum's envy and the not-so-happy end that give me goosebumps. I love it, it's a part of me.

Lazario wrote: I really like and deeply respect this film. And the whole History Vs. Disney thing that people use as an excuse to bash this film is really pathetic. For a few surprising reasons that I'm not sure people are aware of.

Well, Laz, adapting a true event is different from adapting the book. A book is a story, and people often give it their own twists and style to make it worthwild. But, a true-event, one the other hand, actually happened. There is a what is and what isn't. Sometimes, it's not a big deal they make stories, from actual events, afterall, Hamlet and Dracula, for example, were inspired by real-life, but if your going to make a big deal that it was based on an actual event like what Disney did(see previews to see how they promoted Pocahontas as Disney's "first animated film to be based on a real event"), I think you should at least have your facts straight, especially when the real-life Pocahontas was interesting enough. Perhaps, had it been amazing, I would've let it go, but the story was either way too over-the-top or undepthed(it was quite obvious Katzenberg mucked the story up), the songs were dull, with sloppy lyrics and unmemorable sounds, and the character were impossible to like or dislike as they were bland, even the villain was bland. With an inaccurate story to begin with and extremely poor story structure(just imo though) and many other flaws I've explained a lot in the past, it made me, and others feel, why bother making the film in the first place?

In fact, currently, out of the 45 animated classics, I rank it #44(only The Hunchback beats it for it's awfulness).

The important thing for the film was that they told a great story.

Which they didn't do here.

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:(except The Lion King that I can't appreciate that much because no matter how great it is, it's still a movie with talking/singing lions )

So talking/singing fish and silverware okay then?

I like Pocahontas, but I don't love it. It's a great film, but it definitely pales in comparison to the Fab Four that preceded it. And of the three dark films of the nineties (Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Mulan) I would choose Hunchback of Notre Dame over Pocahontas anyday. I would also say that Mulan is slightly better than it. Don't get me wrong, it's a great movie with fantastic animation and great music (that score is haunting) but it just doesn't rate with the best of them. And Pocahontas herself is a pretty bland protangonist. Overall though 6.5 out of 10
-James

Pocahontas as a whole I feel rather lukewarm about, but I agree that it gets a much harsher press than it probably deserves. At any rate, it's certainly a better film with the "If I never knew you" song sequence back intact. They definitly lost something by excising that from the original release.

Speaking of excising, the back-story about John Candy's involvement in the original concepts for the film is an interesting one, though it surprises me how many people seem to believe that, had Redfeather been retained, Pocahontas might have been better received. Oscar-baiting aside, the film would probably have picked up a livelier tone, perhaps negating the (in some places quite justified) accusations of it being 'bland'. But I don't know, I find it hard to believe that people (the historical accuracy police in particular) would have gone any easier on the film if Pocahontas had a talking, wise-cracking turkey as a sidekick. As it happens, I think that Meeko (and to a lesser extent Flit and Percy) is among the more successful elements of the film. I'm relieved that they didn't bless him with the gift of the gab, and allowed his silent, pantomine brand of comedy to shine through instead. Following Aladdin and the Lion King, he made a very welcome variation to the kind of fast-talking, stand-up comedian-voiced sidekick which Disney usually tended to favour throughout the 90s.

I also appreciate the non-traditional conclusion, and a good selection of the songs ("If I never knew you" firmly included). Plus, the background scenery is nicely done. As much as I adored it as a kid, I can no longer muster up too much affection for the film, because as others have already said the storyline and human characterisation feel somewhat lacking, but nor do I consider it an all-out disaster. It's unlikely, for the time being, to receive the same bombastic level of hype as the Lion King, so at the very least it's probably not going to wear out its welcome in my "Fab Four"-jaded mind.

Well, I'm in an extreme hurry tonight and don't have time to read the previous 7 pages. Hope I haven't posted here before, but I think it was just a similar thread. Anyways, I maintain my previous stance. When I first saw Pocahontas, I was somewhat disappointed. I just didn't find it that interesting, though beautifully done. I think I blamed the villain in a lot of ways. I didn't think he was a good enough villain. However, as one will discover when listening to the DVD commentary, Rattcliffe in not meant to be the true villain of the story, prejudice is. That really changes my viewing of the film, and I feel bad that I was one of the many who didn't realize that upon my initial viewing. However, this realization still didn't fix the film for me. What did "FIX" the film for me was when they finished and restored the "If I Never Knew You" duet to the film, which I always felt was severely needed to make this so-so film a great film. Yes, when they put that back in, it suddenly became a great film to me! I really feel that fixed it, and made it worthy to be called a Disney Masterpiece.

As for comparing the film to Mulan, I think, overall, Mulan is the more enjoyable, satisfying film, but it is probably a matter of personal taste. I feel they are both wonderful, underrated masterpieces, especially since they restored that scene to Pocahontas. However, I'm not of the mind that the disregarded, post-Lion King films are better than the "Renaissance Four." I LOVE the Renaissance films, and "Beauty and the Beast" remains the BEST Disney animated feature to date, in my opinion. Though I loved much of the post-Renaissance stuff too. Hunchback of Notre Dame was simply incredible!