Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote: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
Advertising is often quite deceptive. I'm still talking about the quality of the film itself, not the advertising campaign. These two things are completely separate in my mind. It simply amazes me how much people can hold against a film's title, trailer, or marketing ploy.
Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:especially when the real-life Pocahontas was interesting enough.
I'm very sorry you didn't get the film you wanted... Well, not really. But again, this is basically neither here nor there. The merits of the film still hold-up, regardless of what bad ideas Disney had in selling it.
Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:had it been amazing, I would've let it go
The film was good, I wouldn't say "amazing," but again, this doesn't really matter. It was made to have an effect on an audience. A power. This it achieved on a very basic level. What was amazing, as I said before, were the colors and the art design. And several sequences stand out as amazing, supporting this film's version of Pocahontas (as historically inaccurate though she may be) as a strong character and the film's depiction of her relationship with John Smith as touching, dramatic, and convincing as well.
Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:the songs were dull, with sloppy lyrics and unmemorable sounds
That's how I felt when I first saw this movie. And few of these songs actually rank as my favorites, but I have grown to like them very much. I definitely feel that they may be considered an acquired taste. But that again just goes to credit the power of the film. I haven't "grown accustomed to them," I simply see something good in them after only a few repeated viewings. Especially "Steady As the Beating Drum." Generally speaking, I agree with you. But that's because now the songs were being used to push along the plot, or to actually communicate important messages via singing. That's not usually how Disney does their musical numbers. Usually they are escapes from the plot - "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" for example is very silly and has a philosophy all it's own, like almost all Disney's songs. But in this film, the songs are providing all a character's background information ("Mine Mine Mine"), effectively building up an entire section of the film's tension ("Savages" / "Drums of War((?))" - which is 10 times more effective than the ultra-cheesy "Kill the Beast" / "The Mob Song((?))" from Beauty and the Beast), or acting as an entire conversation otherwise considered to be exposition ("Colors of the Wind" and that thing that the father sings to Pocahontas about her mother- I think it was a short continuation of "Steady As the Beating Drum"). I think this was a new experiment for Disney, and it's hard to say it was totally effective because it separates this film a lot from other Disney musicals, but it seems to propel the scenes in the film greatly.
Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:the character were impossible to like or dislike as they were bland, even the villain was bland.
You know, I always thought of Governor Ratcliffe as a slightly more militarized version of Captain Hook - prissy, bumbling, but clever. And believable. Don't know what else you're looking for. But I think Captain Hook is also a very uneffective, lousy, and unthreatening villain. Most people don't agree with me. Just goes to show there's little accounting for taste.
Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:why bother making the film in the first place?
Because it was a Disney animated feature film - who ever knew how anything was going to turn out? But many people trusted the animators, musicians, artists, filmmakers to make a great feature. If anyone expected historical accuracy, they would have gotten it with other Disney features I mentioned - Melody Time and Peter Pan. But they didn't. Why should Disney break tradition? The most important thing was to tell a good story, regardless of what they were actually doing with the History of the Source of it.
Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Lazario wrote:The important thing for the film was that they told a great story.
Which they didn't do here.
That's your "opinion." And one I don't happen to think is based on much actual thinking at all. You still seem to be reacting to Disney's decision not to work from history. All things considered, being fair here... Disney did what they always did and it resulted in a better than average product. Average of course being something like... The Aristocats. You will never understand this movie until you realize you're forgetting Disney's history. It was never important to them to be historically accurate. What was always valued most was to tell a "happy" story with conflicts that always had an uplifting ending. And that they certainly did with this film, only they managed to tell a good story, with a new idea or twist on what
was history. Anything with Disney is fair game - anything goes. I still don't see much of a problem. It sounds like you have more of an issue with what Disney gave to
children and
families as "truth" that turned out to be fictionalized. But there was never any malice with that intention. It's just Disney as usual. Sometimes, real history is just too depressing, or complicated, for children and families to completely digest with an animated musical. If that's why they changed it, I agree with their decision.
)
Yeah, I guess you wouldn't have thought that a sensitive "artist" like me feels this way for the ultimate Disney "cuties". 
But I have to admitt it; they bore me to death. The only exception is Sebastian who's A)not a goo-goo eyed little animal and B)really funny and also given hillarious, clever lines.
