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

Yeah, the movie is middle eastern-esque. The original story is of middle eastern origin, but it is set in China (In an In Name Only sort of way evidently) and Aladdin is Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin

edited 21st Mar '14 3:26:41 PM by Eagal

The point, however, is kind of moot because all three examples you mentioned are from fictional stories (and one mythology) being changed.

This thread is about historical accuracy, I believe.

edited 21st Mar '14 3:31:54 PM by Gaon

The setting in the story in no way resembles China at all...

Not really. The types of people who complain about this sort of thing aren't the types of people who are going to go out of their way to distinguish between real and fictional.

The same basic reactions apply. It's just the details that change.

Hence, "In an In Name Only sort of way"

edited 21st Mar '14 3:40:42 PM by Eagal

Well, if accuracy is completely in the name, why did people give M Night Shyamalan's The Last Air Bender a bad rap for actually pronouncing characters' ethnically correct, for once?

Because that's not their names.

But it's just the "details" right? Really doesn't matter whether its Aang or Ong, Soaka or Sokka in the end, as long as the characterizations are the same.

Beat

You see what I mean?

edited 21st Mar '14 4:06:44 PM by Mattonymy

With the specific case of Pocahontas, the Native American community's displeasure was less about the inaccuracy and more about painting a really heroic, romantic picture of what ultimately ended up being colonialism and genocide. It took the start of a horrific series of tragedies and racial injustices and made it a flippin' cartoon musical.

It was less about the inaccuracy of it all and more of the "Wow this is really not an appropriate subject for a lighthearted kiddie cartoon" aspect.

Oh, and Disney also somehow "de-ethniced" Pocahontas. Every hint of Native features short of her skin color was replaced with supermodel features. Why doesn't she have a nose?

I never actually finished The Last Airbender. Walked out of the theatre about ten minutes in.

I couldn't say whether the characterizations were the same (though I'm told there was a very good deleted scene of Ozai that shits on Mark Hamil's performance)

As I said before, it's down to personal bias. Some people saw the movie and thought "THIS IS AN ABOMINATION UNTO ALL THAT IS SACRED AND GOOD!" and some saw it (roughly 6-30% going solely by Rotten Tomatoes) and had no problems with it. Maybe even enjoyed it.

This applies just the same to The Last Airbender (fictional series) as it does to Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (History being altered to suit the purposes of the movie).

edited 21st Mar '14 4:30:30 PM by Eagal

I disagree with your thinking. Myths and history are two inherentily different things (granted, at times, there are crossovers), and one can find artistic license towards one acceptable while unacceptable towards the other (mainly because altering myths harms no one, altering real history brings a whole mess of problems, such as defaming innocent people like Richard the III).

I think it depends on what your goal is for the film. If you're trying to be all Oscar Bait-y and make some kind of statement like Pocahontas was, then screwing around with events and adding silly stuff isn't a good idea. On the other hand, if your goal is merely to entertain and not be serious at all, then historical accuracy isn't going to be an issue.

They weren't ethnically correct. "Uh-vatar" is an incorrect pronunciation of "Aa-vatar" because Sanskrit, the language where the word comes from, has no "uh" sound. Sokka and Aang are made up names. Katara was unintentionally also the name of a South Asian dagger but otherwise the creators thought they had also made up that name. Plus, it came off as hypocritical and Dramatically Missing the Point of Shyamalan to insist his pronunciation was "more ethnically correct" and yet not cast actors who were the correct ethnicity.

edited 21st Mar '14 5:43:33 PM by Tuckerscreator

But it's just the "details" right? Really doesn't matter whether its Aang or Ong, Soaka or Sokka in the end, as long as the characterizations are the same.

I rather suspect that the fans would have gotten over the mispronounced names if the characterizations were the same. =P Unfortunately, "Ong" had all the fun sucked out of him and replaced with generic angst, "Soaka" lost just about every defining trait he had, movie!Katara lost every bit of competency she had in the show and got taken out like a chump at the very moment when she was meant to show just how much she'd grown, and none of them actually maintained their distinctive voice from the series. All of that was way more important than the names.

When it comes to being based on actual historical events, a lot of it comes down to how much damage the movie can do to represent real events. Pocahontas, being a movie about colonization and a subject which tends to be glossed over in American schools (not much time being spent going over the subject), means that the movie can do way more damage in perception to those who watch it, especially since the non-mystic parts portray John Smith as a hero, and the US already has issues in portraying Native Americans. Anatasia, on the other hand, is less likely to do damage because of how much of the inaccuracy was clearly fantasy, and more importantly, how the Bolshevik revolution is often gone over and discussed in length in history classes due to Soviet Russia eventually coming out of it and the extreme relevance to modern history.

I think the crime in Anastasia is cultivating the idea that the people had no good reason to be aggrieved with the Romanovs and needed an evil sorceror's magic to push them to revolt. While the Bolsheviks did terrible things, it kind of plays into almost a reactionary fantasy that nobody ever has a good reason to revolt against the established order (or implies that the Bolshevik movement itself was born of dark magic. Which is silly, but also something of a Take That! that really undermines the earnest desires behind the dark deeds of the Bolsheviks).

Pocahontas was less bad except that they used the British flag about 100 years before England and Scotland would fuse, let alone Ireland (and the old Irish flag is key to the design of the British flag)

What? No mention of Hercules?

What that movie did to the original myth was beyond forgivable.

And some jerk says that I shouldn't complain about it because "It's not real! Therefore! Not Existant!"

It was a COMEDY adventure.

Any intent on trying to find logic in the changes they made is futile.

My reaction? It's just a movie.

And because the real Greek myths done accurately would be wayyyyyyy too R-rated for an animated Disney film.

This. Right here. So much.

I mean it begs the question of "Why use that topic to begin with if you can't do it right without the Moral Guardians getting mad?" but....

edited 22nd Mar '14 5:31:23 PM by stargirl93

Do you think Disney would allow a movie about a deity who was born illegimately between a god and a human, and whose mother is obviously evil beyond a PG-rated level???

Worked for Sam Raimi.

... are you talking about Oz The Great And Powerful, the one Disney film Sam Raimi ever directed?

What? No. Look at the hotlink.