When is historical inacuracy okay vs. not okay in animated films?

I've noticed that people often disagree on weather or not it's okay that Pocahontas and Anastasia are historically inacurate. Some people complain about it, others say something like "who cares, it's entertainment" and some of the latter crowd even get angry at anyone who criticizes the way these movies portray historical figures. On the other hand, pretty much everyone seems to agree that the historical inacuracies of the two animated Titanic movies are offensive. So what's the difference? Why is that these movies get a free pass from many people on their historical inacuracies but these two don't?

Never seen them, but aren't those Titanic movies badly made in all respects? They might get less of a pass for historical inaccuracy because they have a lot of other flaws already, so that's like the straw that broke the camel's back. Also, while it's also true of Anastasia and Pocahontas (although less directly), the Titanic ones are about a historical tragedy- it seems bad taste to try to make a happy children's film out of it.

Might also have to do with how recent the film is set. Anastasia and the Titanic ones are set relatively recently, which gives less excuse to use artistic license.

One other thought, John Smith was kind of a pathological liar, which sort of justifies a Pocahontas story being heavily fictionalized.

Well, Anastasia also has a historical tradgedy in its plot (the Ramanovs all being wiped out) but it claims that the reason this happened is because an evil wizard cast a spell on people, which strikes me as about as respectful as claiming the reason the Titanic sank is because of evil talking sharks. And really, don't human beings deserve to have their deaths treated respectfully no matter how long ago it happened?

Those two Titanic movies are really obscure, so there's a good chance no one would care if you brought it up.

Honestly, Anastasia isn't all that popular either. I think it's just as bad as the Titanic ones- it just is better known and had better production values.

I think a part of it is that the Titanic is more familiar to American/English/Australian audiences, while the Russian revolution was just "something that happened" and the real trouble started later. As a result, people in English-speaking countries are more likely to be offended by messing with it.

I'm not saying this is a particularly pleasant state of affairs, but Humans Are Flawed.

edited 10th Nov '11 4:59:10 PM by CountDorku

I know that even while I was in high school there were some kids who really did believe that Disney's Pocahontas was what really happened. So yeah, inaccuracy care be a little harmful, but harmful to people who aren't savvy enough to realize the difference between reality and fiction.

You do realise you just described everyone on earth, right?

...

Man, I'm bitter this week.

Isn't Anastasia a remake of the 1956 film?

The trouble with the second Titanic cartoon was that it ignored everything to say WHALE HUNTING IS BAD, MOTHERFUCKERS.

Not so sure about accuracy. Maybe it depends on how serious it is?

I think everything should aim for some accuracy, but some deviations are acceptable. pocahontas Is a good example of what NOT too do. You give all the kids the idea thats what happened, then they have too be re-taught. They should have made it accurate, but clean it up a little. Cut down on violence from real world, but keep it accurate overall. Libertys Kids is a good example of what TO DO. It was historically accurate for the most part, but shoe horned them in so that you can see how history more or less went.

edited 10th Nov '11 7:37:13 PM by Joesolo

Well, entertainment isn't strictly educational, so I'd go for plot over accuracy. The main exception is when you're working with real people. It might just be a pet peeve of mine, but I've always found it both disrespectful and very confusing.

I wouldn't mind if Pocahontas fictionalized a time and setting. When it fictionalizes the time, setting, and historical figures, that's really weird.

Historically inaccurate stories have done damage, if only to the reputations of the people involved in them. Richard III most likely did NOT kill the little princes in the tower, as Shakespeare said he did, and King John was merely unpopular because he had to raise taxes to haul England out of the debt his brother Richard the Lionhearted (who didn't speak English, and viewed England as just one of his many land holdings, and not even his favorite) put it in, not the mustache-twirling weasel oft depicted in Robin Hood movies.

Really? The presence of a talking tree and Pocahontas learning a new language just by "listening with her heart" didn't tip them off?

See, for me, as long as a movie is fun to watch, I won't care about its accuracy. Now, I might make fun of it afterwards, but if the movie is enjoyable it certainly is not going to affect my enjoyment of the film. In these cases, I usually look at these types of movies as historical fiction.

Now, on the other hand, if they're sincerely acting like "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED", welllll...

Anastasia, at least, had elements of magic in it; that tranforms it from Historical Fiction into Historical Fantasy, and audiences judge the two genres differently.

Also, while the death of the child Romanovs was certainly a tragedy, isn't the overthrow of the Tsarocracy generally seen as a good thing?

edited 11th Nov '11 4:34:21 AM by RavenWilder

To be fair, plenty of people at the time believed that Rasputin was an evil wizard and that he helped destroy the Romanovs (instead of being on their side.) And Anastasia was believed to have escaped alive for a long time. So you can take Bluth's Anastasia as a portrayal of what the people of the time thought had happened, making it 'historically accurate' from a certain point of view.

Though if an animator is going to make a project like this, they should be *very clear* that they're being historically inaccurate. Perhaps through an Unreliable Narrator.

edited 11th Nov '11 6:18:35 AM by Sijo

To answer the OP:

NEVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. EVER. NEVER.

I'm done. Besides giving those who bust their ass in this industry a bad name by looking stupid and uneducated.

But if I must add more: It's insulting to those with an actual sense of knowledge about the real world and its history around them. Simple as that.

edited 11th Nov '11 8:32:18 AM by LostAnarchist

So I take it Historical Fantasy isn't your cup of tea?

P.S. Anastasia's remains were only positively identified within, like, the last ten years or something. When the movie was made her surviving seemed like a possibility (if a remote one), along the same lines as there being a second JFK shooter.

Now I can suspend my dibelief, don't you worry about that. But when it results in treating its target audience like idiots, that's when I get up in arms on an issue like this.

Then again, I should've worded why I said "no" to this topic question as my answer better, right?

edited 11th Nov '11 3:52:58 PM by LostAnarchist

How, in your opinion, does a film go about "treating its target audience like idiots" beyond the mere presence of historical inaccuracies?

I'm kinda with Lost Anarchist here. History is very important to humanity, as its where a lot of our modern ideals and enlightenment come from, and you know what they say—those who don't know the past are doomed to repeat it. We see our past misdeeds and learn from them. More than once in Three Kingdoms a wise general suggests a winning course of action, or argues against a losing one, using historical precedent, and they're usually right.

There's also, of course, the evils of Revisionist History.

That being said, I see a difference between something like, say, Disney's Pocahontas and, say, a computer game where the Axis powers have a robot Hitler. It's all about context.

It's almost like anything that talks down to you (about how something went down in this case or) or doesn't explain itself/properly, making itself look stupid/insulting in the process. You know you're not only watching something historically inaccurate, but insulting to boot, when it does that.

Then there are times here filmmakers fake history... You know, for kids! I despise seeing kids get lied to to hide how bloody, violent, and corrupt America's History is, for example. How can this nation make any kind of progress when we're giving the middle finger to our corrupting/violent history, rather than embracing it to learn how to transcend it?!

While I agree with both posters above, you have to consider the target audience. As a little kid I DID hear about the sad fate of Princess Anastasia, and I would not have wanted to see a film about her because it would make me sad- unless it included things like a happy ending, an undead wizard and a cute bat. There's a time and place to teach all the facts. We are just not ready to deal with how unfair the world is at all stages of our lives.

(That said, I agree that Pocahontas was misleading because it just reinterpreted everything, making it more an outright lie than a fancified retelling.)

See dude that's the thing: if you're gonna make a fun happy children's movie, why base it on a historical tragedy? Why not base it on a fairy tale, or something else completely made up?

I mean, "target audience" shouldn't really apply to reality. If you're in town when a dam breaks, the dam doesn't really care whether you're too young to understand death or not.