Live action Disney movie Pocahontas?

[SomeRandom]

You have surely watched Pocahontas.
What's wrong with that movie?

I’m not really much of a fan of Pocahontas, even as a kid.
It was nicely animated. The story was a bit insulting though. Not terrible though

I’ve grown up in the colonial hangover, so I learnt from a young age just exactly what the colonisers did.
Sure you could make several films from that alone, even kid friendly films.

But for me, learning about the real Pocahontas was like learning your favourite author/actor whatever was a real life pervert who hurt people. You know? For the first time in your life.
So it just seems unseemly in hindsight.

Others can enjoy the film if they enjoy it. I have no issue with that.

I just don’t see how that particular remake could satisfy either side of the inevitable roaring debate that will pop up in response.

That’s not me finding fault with the film or even Disney. That’s just what I expect the public reaction to be

 

[Augustus]

The original movie sugarcoats atrocious events by making it seem that most white settlers were friendly and didn't want to fight, when in reality they committed genocide

There may be some specific incidents that can be called genocide, but the generic application of the term to multiple centuries of very different people doing very different things across an enormous area is as outdated as the noble white settler myths imo.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's not the message that that movie means to convey.
Otherwise there would have been a happy ending, with Smith and Pocahontas getting married in Virginia. Yet he returns to London, wounded.

What message is it that I suggested it was conveying? Sappy love story? Sure it was.

The message is that the European colonizers had a wrong logic of conquest and exploitation of land, while Native Americans used to respect nature, without exploiting it.
And since Americans have the tail of straw, they can hardly receive approval from an audience that believes in greed and exploitation of resources, until they run out completely.

Like I said...preachy. Disney possibly isn't the ones to moralise on the sins of capitalism.
The movie didn't need to use real characters, and change the story, did it? Couldn't it have invented their own characters? Why did they not?

 

[Estro Felino]

Like I said...preachy. Disney possibly isn't the ones to moralise on the sins of capitalism.
The movie didn't need to use real characters, and change the story, did it? Couldn't it have invented their own characters? Why did they not?

So you confirmed my point.
People don't like to be preached.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Exactly. The original movie sugarcoats atrocious events by making it seem that most white settlers were friendly and didn't want to fight, when in reality they committed genocide. Whether or not some Native American tribes also committed atrocities toward one another is beside the point: the focal point here is whether this movie should be remade with that specific storyline in the present, and I believe it shouldn't be.

Also, as far as I know, the only written accounts we have about Pocahontas state that she was kidnapped, raped, and kept in captivity.

Pocahontas: Her Life and Legend - Historic Jamestowne Part of Colonial National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

I don't see this as a movie with a plot that should be remade in 2023. I loved it as a child, but now I can definitely see why it's best left alone and in the past.

I'm not aware of any written accounts suggesting she was raped. I believe there are oral accounts outlining that. It's worth noting that the oral and written accounts are inconsistent and contradictory. It's hard to know much of what actually happened.
Suffice to say, the movie is not based on any of the various possible realities. It is instead a bog standard love story with a veneer.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So you confirmed my point.
People don't like to be preached.

I mean...I called it preachy in my first post.
Disney movies over time became increasingly likely to be preachy. Ham-fisted moralisations by a company with a litany of dubious work practices over time gets a little hard to swallow, I would say. It makes movies obvious and less timeless.

 

[Soandso]

There may be some specific incidents that can be called genocide, but the generic application of the term to multiple centuries of very different people doing very different things across an enormous area is as outdated as the noble white settler myths imo.

I'd be inclined to agree. While certainly the outcome of post contact America was ultimately devestating for indigenous folks, different people in different eras interracted with the situation in different ways. The increasing attitudes that led up to Manifest Destiny and the Indian Wars is where the real monstrous behavior from the US began to come out

Still, there were foreign folks who wanted to live peacefully with the indigenous people in various tribes - eg. A lot of French fur trappers coexisted to the point where the local trading language of the Pacific Northwest included a lot of French words

In any case... I'm not sure Disney is equipped to handle such a massive, complex topic

 

[Estro Felino]

I mean...I called it preachy in my first post.
Disney movies over time became increasingly likely to be preachy. Ham-fisted moralisations by a company with a litany of dubious work practices over time gets a little hard to swallow, I would say. It makes movies obvious and less timeless.

Even back then, the movie was criticized and considered controversial because there was this mantra (Native Americans= good, Europeans= bad)...
but many people love this movie and so many people are saddened by the fact that they are remaking all movies but this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Even back then, the movie was criticized and considered controversial because there was this mantra (Native Americans= good, Europeans= bad)...
but many people love this movie and so many people are saddened by the fact that they are remaking all movies but this.

It's what I mean by timeless, though. The movie has aged horribly. There have been other Disney examples (Song of the South was even more the case).
Sleeping Beauty was remade from a different perspective entirely, and gave us Maleficent, which I thought was interesting.
The live action remake of Dumbo had the character 'Jim Crow' removed.
The live action Lady and the Tramp removed some of the Asian stereotyping.

Live action Pocohontas would become...I'm not sure what. Either a nostalgia trip for a few, and offensive to some others, or a complete rewrite, more along the lines of Maleficent, completely changing the focus of the tale. Now THAT could be interesting.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There may be some specific incidents that can be called genocide, but the generic application of the term to multiple centuries of very different people doing very different things across an enormous area is as outdated as the noble white settler myths imo.

Yeah, I was just referring to the romanticized and simplistic depiction of white settlers in Disney's Pocahontas. In the same vein, a movie depicting white settlers as one-dimensional villains all similar to each other and Native Americans as peaceful heroes would also be both simplistic and anachronistic if it released today.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I mean...I called it preachy in my first post.
Disney movies over time became increasingly likely to be preachy. Ham-fisted moralisations by a company with a litany of dubious work practices over time gets a little hard to swallow, I would say. It makes movies obvious and less timeless.

Generally, I tend to try to separate the art from its source and rate it on its own merits, although that can be challenging when there are glaring inconsistencies (as with Disney's corrupt corporate practices that you mentioned). I loved Zootopia and Inside Out, and I'm planning to watch Frozen at some point. I know that some people consider all of those movies to be "preachy" or to have an "agenda," though. I'm not really sure that's how I'd describe the ones I've watched; I don't like obvious messages in movies geared toward adults, but those are kids' movies. I give them a lot more leeway to be obvious in their messaging, given the primary target audience.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not aware of any written accounts suggesting she was raped. I believe there are oral accounts outlining that. It's worth noting that the oral and written accounts are inconsistent and contradictory. It's hard to know much of what actually happened.
Suffice to say, the movie is not based on any of the various possible realities. It is instead a bog standard love story with a veneer.

Yeah, I haven't read a lot about her, so I was mainly going by the account cited in the link I posted. There's definitely quite a bit of uncertainty surrounding what has reached us about her life.

I agree that the movie is just divorced from any possible reality, though. Even if Pocahontas were an entirely fictional character, the simplistic depictions of white settlers and Native Americans would by themselves still be enough to render the movie unsuitable for our current time, in my opinion.

 

[SomeRandom]

Generally, I tend to try to separate the art from its source and rate it on its own merits, although that can be challenging when there are glaring inconsistencies (as with Disney's corrupt corporate practices that you mentioned). I loved Zootopia and Inside Out, and I'm planning to watch Frozen at some point. I know that some people consider all of those movies to be "preachy" or to have an "agenda," though. I'm not really sure that's how I'd describe the ones I've watched; I don't like obvious messages in movies geared toward adults, but those are kids' movies. I give them a lot more leeway to be obvious in their messaging, given the primary target audience.

To be completely honest with you
I found Zootopia and Inside Out to have rather mature messages.
For the age range they’re primarily aimed at,
I mean

I’m a bit too much of a Fairytale Purist these days to enjoy Frozen lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Generally, I tend to try to separate the art from its source and rate it on its own merits, although that can be challenging when there are glaring inconsistencies (as with Disney's corrupt corporate practices that you mentioned). I loved Zootopia and Inside Out, and I'm planning to watch Frozen at some point. I know that some people consider all of those movies to be "preachy" or to have an "agenda," though. I'm not really sure that's how I'd describe the ones I've watched; I don't like obvious messages in movies geared toward adults, but those are kids' movies. I give them a lot more leeway to be obvious in their messaging, given the primary target audience.

Fair points. I was mostly fine with those movies, tbh. No movies are perfect, but overall I liked them. Although got WELL sick of Frozen, due to my girls having it on constant repeat back then.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, I haven't read a lot about her, so I was mainly going by the account cited in the link I posted. There's definitely quite a bit of uncertainty surrounding what has reached us about her life.

I agree that the movie is just divorced from any possible reality, though. Even if Pocahontas were an entirely fictional character, the simplistic depictions of white settlers and Native Americans would by themselves still be enough to render the movie unsuitable for our current time, in my opinion.

Yup.

I'm really taken with the idea of doing a Maleficent style rework now, though.
(Not sure if you've seen that?)

 

[Estro Felino]

Americans, dears, you could borrow our Amerigo Vespucci ship....for the movie.

 

[Father Heathen]

You have surely watched Pocahontas.
What's wrong with that movie?

Again, as we've already explained, it's not the movie itself but the source material. Pocahontas was a real person, who lived a short tragic life essentially due to being trafficked. You wouldn't get away with trying to sweep that along with the plight of the Native Americans in general under the rug today.

 

[Father Heathen]

The message is that the European colonizers had a wrong logic of conquest and exploitation of land, while Native Americans used to respect nature, without exploiting it.
And since Americans have the tail of straw, they can hardly receive approval from an audience that believes in greed and exploitation of resources, until they run out completely.

Lets step out of the pizza dimension for a moment and into the real world.

As we've already established, nobody in the U.S. has any issues acknowledging the exploitation and atrocities committed against the Native Americans, except perhaps some conservatives (who you love) might consider such acknowledgement "woke" (which you hate).

 

[Estro Felino]

Again, as we've already explained, it's not the movie itself but the source material. Pocahontas was a real person, who lived a short tragic life essentially due to being trafficked. You wouldn't get away with trying to sweep that along with the plight of the Native Americans in general under the rug today.

But Danes could feel insulted that Disney completely twisted the meaning and the plot of The Little Mermaid. They consider Andersen a national hero, and yet they don't.
Or in Mulan there are things which are not historically accurate.

Come on...these are all excuses, in my humble opinion. Otherwise they would have never made the Pocahontas cartoon in the first place.
It's because of the message: the American audience, the Capitalists don't want to feel guilty.

 

[Father Heathen]

@Estro Felino Do you think it would be a good idea to make an animated musical based on the diary of Anne Frank? Except instead of meeting her tragic demise in a concentration camp, she instead falls in love with a german officer who has a change of heart and whisks her away to safety and freedom?