Do You Like/Dislike "Pocahontas"?

[DisneyChris]

To me, only Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King are the only great Disney classics since the 2nd Golden Age. The others were either OK films or bad, including Pocahontas. The only thing I liked about Pocahontas was the "Colors of the Wind" sequence.

[karlsen]

.. and that is why most people dislike Eisner that much as well.

There has not been a single gigantic release in 10 years.

[Disney Villain]

I loved Pochahontas it was probally one of he best Disney movies i ever saw. But that's my oppinion.

[Disney Guru]

I loved Pocahontas so much! It is one great Disney Movie!

[PheR]

Pocahontas is my least favorite from the nineties, I don't know why, cause is a beautiful film, maybe is because of the plot or the weack sidekicks like you said, and the villian is the weakest of them all....I'm not saying I don't like it though

[Joe Carioca]

I love Meeko, Flit and Percy! They fit within the film... Or did you want them to sing and dance?

Besides, "Pocahontas" is one of the most visually beautiful Disney films ever, with its design that goes back to "Sleeping Beauty"

[PatrickvD]

My thoughts exactly. And if I hated the entire movie, the end scene with Pocahontas running to the top of the cliff to wave good-bye is amazing.

oh yes! I still get goosebumps whenever I see that part. It makes up for whatever story problems there are ( that others seem to have issues with ). I truly think Pocahontas is one of the better Disney films.

[pinkrenata]

I always find it strange that people complain about the historical inaccuracies found in Pocahontas when, in fact, the *legend* that the film is based on is full of innaccuracies itself. The fact of the matter is that Pocahontas was around 12 at the time, and had no romantic relationship with John Smith whatsoever. It has even been debated that John Smith invented the story for his own ego boost once Pocahontas had become well-known in England. This being said, I wouldn't blame Disney quite so much for the inaccuracies. They were created long before the film was even in pre-production.

[rodis]

I always find it strange that people complain about the historical inaccuracies found in Pocahontas when, in fact, the *legend* that the film is based on is full of innaccuracies itself. The fact of the matter is that Pocahontas was around 12 at the time, and had no romantic relationship with John Smith whatsoever. It has even been debated that John Smith invented the story for his own ego boost once Pocahontas had become well-known in England. This being said, I wouldn't blame Disney quite so much for the inaccuracies. They were created long before the film was even in pre-production.

Good point

[AwallaceUNC]

I think people's beef is that Disney based their's on the legend instead of the truth that you described, not the movie in comparison to the legend.

But I'm not a big nature person, so I think that impacts my perception of this movie too.

-Aaron

[Jake Lipson]

Yes, I love it. I love all of the '90s musicals a whole lot. But it's just not up there with the Fab Four. After The Lion King, Disney had nowhere to go but down: the expectations were too high, so a downward spiral was kind of inevitable. Disney was in that sense a victim of their own success.

But they only went down a notch or two. If The Fab Four were EXELLENT, then Pocahontas through Mulan were just a notch or two below them being VERY GOOD. I am an American, and yet I have no issues with Pocahontas. It was a great epic, sweeping romance, haunting musical, serious drama, and the ending, wow.

There was a wonderfully stylized, unique quality to the animation that made it rare and special. It harkened back to Sleeping Beauty, almost, in this sense.

It was really in the right place in the wrong time, I think, and will come to be appriciated later. I think it suffered by being seen as Disney's follow-up to THE LION KING, with everyone expecting another TLK but not getting it. Then it would become overshadowed a few months later by Toy Story, the same fate that happened to Universal's exellent Balto. That's another history-based fictionalized epic from 1995, and no one remembers it, but it was exellent.

[Paka]

Not a big fan of Pocahontas, myself. It was the first of several post-TLK animated films to be too tinkered with by Disney executives. Katzenberg wanted another Best Picture nom for an animated film after Beauty and the Beast so badly that he seriously bled a lot of the original life out of it. He wanted to make a big, important epic-type film, the kind that most Oscars were handed to. But his singular, narrow-sighted vision really hurt the film in the end.

Here's an excerpt from an old Jim Hill article that explains the situation in detail -

"Pocahontas" (1995)

Everyone knows that Candy turned in a killer performance as Wilbur, the fun loving albatross in Disney's 1990 animated feature, "The Rescuers Down Under." But how many of you know that John was invited to Disney to provide the voice for yet another bird -- a turkey this time -- only to have his goose cooked when Jeffrey Katzenberg got "Go for the Gold" fever.

It's true. Katzenberg's lust for a "Best Picture" nomination ended up costing Candy his second chance as portray a Disney animated character as well as bleeding a lot of the fun of "Pocahontas." You know, there are still people working at Disney Studios who believe that "Pocahontas" would have been a better movie if "Beauty and the Beast" just hadn't been nominated for "Best Picture" in the 1991 Academy Awards.

Think about it. "Pocahontas" was happily chugging along the development track at Disney. It's shaping up to be a small but fun film for the studio. Its production team had already decided that the legendary Indian princess should be portrayed as a 12 year-old girl who falls in love with John Smith, a 15 year-old English settler. That seemed like the simplest, most innocent way for the Mouse to handle some fairly sensitive subject material.

Then "Beauty and The Beast" hits theaters in November 1991, and hits big. The film gets great reviews and racks up huge numbers at the box office. The critics go on and on about what a wonderful date film "B & B" is, how adults have been won over by this marvelous animated film.

And then -- in February 1992 -- the Academy Award nominations are announced. And there's "Beauty and the Beast," the first animated film to ever be nominated for a "Best Picture" Oscar.

Sadly, "B & B" didn't win. Not for "Best Picture," anyway. (The film did take home three other Oscars that night. Best Song, Best Score as well as a special award in recognition of Disney's development of CAPs, the computer animation production system that the Mouse had used so brilliant during the production of "Beauty and the Beast.")

But Jeffrey Katzenberg had seen the promised land. People were now taking the studio's animated films -- the movies he personally supervised -- seriously. If "Beauty and the Beast" had come close to winning a "Best Picture" Oscar, Jeffrey was now determined to do whatever he had to see to it that another Disney animated film win that award.

So Jeffrey scouted out his competition. Looking back over the history of the Oscars, Katzenberg learned that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences usually gave its "Best Picture" award to films it felt were big and serious, sweeping romantic epics. "If that's the way they play it, fine by me" Katzenberg thought. "Disney's just going to have to churn out the biggest, most serious sweepingly romantic cartoon the world has ever seen."

Since both "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" were too far along in production to get a win-a-Best-Picture-Oscar makeover, Katzenberg pretty much left those films alone. But not poor "Pocahontas."

Here was a film whose development was just getting underway. Here was a story that Jeffrey would have plenty of time to shape and mold 'til it was serious enough and important enough that the Academy would *HAVE TO* take notice, guaranteeing "Pocahontas" a best picture nomination in 1996.

The first thing Katzenberg changed was Pocahontas and John Smith's ages. Now 18 years old, Jeffrey ordered order her animator -- animation master Glen Keane -- to make Pocahontas " the most beautiful creature that had ever walked the earth." John Smith's age was also moved up too. No longer a gawky adolescent, Smith was a robust manly adventurer of 25 years of age.

Now that the film's protagonists were adults, Katzenberg insisted that Pocahontas and John Smith to have an adult romance. This meant passionate kisses in front of large sweeping vistas, meaningful glances against richly detailed backgrounds.

Of course -- to make room for all this adult stuff (ie: Oscar bait) -- Jeffrey had to cut back on Pocahontas' cute little forest friends. The first to go was a talking turkey that was supposed to be the Indian princess's confidant. This character -- then known as Redfeather -- was voiced by John Candy and animated by Nick Ranieri.

Redfeather was originally supposed to have provided much of the comic relief for "Pocahontas." Candy came into his recording sessions for the film and -- in addition to delivering his scripted lines like a pro -- improvised a lot of new, funny material for his character right on the spot. Had Redfeather actually survived to make it into the finished film, "Pocahontas" probably would have been a lot more fun to watch.

But a talking turkey didn't fit into Jeffrey's vision of an Academy Award-winning animated film. No talking animals did. Under Katzenberg's radical revision of the film, Redfeather became Deadfeather -- disappearing completely from the film. In his place came Meeko, the non-talking raccoon and Flit, the mostly-silent hummingbird.

The irony here is that -- by trying to create a movie that was sure to win a "Best Picture" nomination -- Jeffrey profoundly weakened the finished product. He ended up with an animated film that was too serious for kids yet too lightweight for adults. In the end, "Pocahontas" was an artistic failure -- a cartoon that meant well, rather than entertained. People were impressed by its beautiful art direction and somber tone, but rarely got caught up in the action. The films got respectful reviews but did less than half the business "Lion King" had done the previous summer. In the end, "Pocahontas" was that rarest of cartoons: well intended, but not much fun to watch.

The real tragedy here is that -- not too long after John Candy's character got cut from the film -- John passed away. The heavyset comedian died in his sleep in March 1994, while on location shooting a comic western in Mexico. Some of Candy's last work -- perhaps his best work -- is preserved on those Redfeather recording sessions for "Pocahontas." Too bad that we're never going to get to hear them.

*sigh*

Did I mention that some of these stories are really depressing?

And -- while it would be nice to report that Jeffrey Katzenberg learned from the mistakes he made on "Pocahontas" -- anyone who saw Dreamworks' premiere animated feature, "The Prince of Egypt," knows that Jeffrey's still up to his old tricks. It wasn't enough that that new studio's first traditional animated film be entertaining. It also had to be important.

Somewhere along the line, Katzenberg has gotten his priorities a little screwed up. Yes, it's nice when movies -- particularly animated movies -- win awards. But a movie's first goal should be to entertain. Not enlighten. Not inform. But entertain.

Stop chasing after awards, Jeffrey. If you make the most entertaining film possible, don't worry, the awards will find you. On the other hand, if your main purpose for making a movie is win praise and awards, you'll probably get neither.

Just a tip from a guy who likes turkey.

Real shame, I think. I'd love to hear some Redfeather tracks, and perhaps a gallery of character designs, or pencil tests, if any exist. I agree with Jim that the overall product is pretty underwhelming and forgettable. It's nice to look at, for sure - the animation and backgrounds are great - but the story is overall blah. I also think it's kind of ironic that Katz cut the talking turkey, but replaced him with 2 cute animal sidekicks! Sure they were mute, but they were still anthropomorphisized in every other respect... corny jokes an' all.
The historical thing does kinda get to me, too. Making a 12-year-old girl into a Barbie-of-the-forest who's got the hots for a cute blonde guy is kind of... yeah. Me no likey. I kind of like the original treatment - keeping Pocahontas at her real age, and "youthifying" Mel - I mean... John Smith.
But even if they stayed true to the commonly told tale, it still is unverified. You still might annoy people with that. And when you look at it from all angles, you really can't make it truly work. Like Hunchback of Notre Dame, it's just stuck in the middle, and doesn't work as an idea for a family-oriented animated film. I think it would have ultimately been best if Disney hadn't tried to tackle these two stories at all.

[Ballzo]

I love that her breasts get smaller throughout the movie. Has anyone else noticed this? Maybe it's just me.

[karlsen]

I have never even looked, I tend to not focus on those things in a cartoon.

[Loomis]

I have never even looked, I tend to not focus on those things in a cartoon.

Then WHAT, pray tell, ARE you looking at, hmmm?

Surely this is what everyone looks at, right? Right??!!?

To be perfectly honest (and this scares even me), I've never noticed.

It would be interesting to put together a video montage to prove this. Anyone have stills from the film?

[Jordan]

'Pocahontas' is one of the Disney movie whicih I dislike the most, with 'Hercules', as you said.

I didn't get into the movie. The story could be interesting to put into an animated film but, to my mind, not the way Disney did.
I didn't like the animation either, and I think that there are too much songs that don't make the movie better.
Finally, I didn't find in it the Disney magic that I love so much.

[rodis]

'Pocahontas' is one of the Disney movie whicih I dislike the most, with 'Hercules', as you said.

I didn't get into the movie. The story could be interesting to put into an animated film but, to my mind, not the way Disney did.
I didn't like the animation either, and I think that there are too much songs that don't make the movie better.
Finally, I didn't find in it the Disney magic that I love so much.

But what's not to like in the animation? That's what I mostly don't understand... What do so many people have against the animation here... The vertical pine trees are SUPPOSED to look like this, it's the style of the animation here! And unlike say "Aladdin" or "Mulan", here the minor characters are also drawn with so much care and detail it's amazing.
Oh well, it's a matter of taste...

[Matty-Mouse]

Short but simple....

I love Pocahontas, I think its a masterpiece and definately a 90's classic. Easily one of my all time top Disney movies.

[MickeyMousePal]

Pocahontas was a great film.
The history may be different but it was still good to like it.
I really enjoyed Pocahontas it was beautiful, wonderful and colorful.
Besides it made over 100+million mark and it has a great sequel.
I wonder who critize it?

[AwallaceUNC]

Paka- I love what Jim Hill wrote. I didn't know, but find it all very interesting. I think I would've liked Pocahontas a lot more had it been kept this way. As for Prince of Egypt, I think the Oscar-style fits it a little more (plus, Amy Grant's on the soundtrack, so I gotta love it ). But it, too, seemed to be lacking a little life.

-Aaron