Disney/Pixar In General

While I was out and about working on my writing last night, a very interesting idea occurred to me.

Since Disney bought 20th Century Fox recently, it got me wondering: could one of my characters, Anna, be considered to be wearing a Disney Princess-style dress now? For one of my future stories, I gave her a black dress like the one Anastasia wore in the Don Bluth movie of the same name.

Deepest lore time.

The Ark of the Covenant is apparently in Galaxy's Edge, and Bantuu is canon to the Star Wars universe.

Edited by Karxrida on Jun 11th 2019 at 4:51:14 AM

Looks like "101 Dalmatian Street" is heading to Disney+.

It’s canon to the expanded Universe at least...

thanks! Fixed!

Edited by megaeliz on Jun 12th 2019 at 8:03:24 AM

Cannon or canon?

Speaking of Anastasia, with Disney's buyout does that mean it's technically a Disney film now?

Nope,they didn't make it so it can't be a disney movie,they own the company ( Fox) who made it though

Interestingly, Don Bluth used to work for Disney, thus why a lot of people thought Anastasia was a Disney movie. Looks like it's come full circle.

Anastasia never seemed Disney to art style is different. Now, Balto, however, looks Disney (or Don Bluth).

I watched Pocahontas for probably the first time, back to front; I'd seen it before but never in one sitting and with some missed scenes. It's very... average. It's difficult to understand why people at Disney thought it would be bigger than The Lion King.

Some random thoughts:

• Pocahontas is seldom anyone's favorite Disney princess and I think it's because her characterization is so muddled. She's supposed to be spiritual, yet all I see is a nature-loving hippie. She's too free-spirited and perfect, with not enough conflict or focus on her greater characterization.
• John Smith is just... there. He's pretty boring. Somehow, he's both a Pretty Boy and uncannily ugly. He's obviously attractive but his character design is weird. Maybe his eyes? They don't look like they're looking at anything and they're weirdly beady.
• The talking tree is weird. She doesn't come off as a spiritual thing, just a weird thing.
• The animal characters are unneeded. They're not bad or annoying, but that's the problem: They don't do anything except add comedic relief. And there's three of them! Characters like Olaf, Timon, Thumper, etc add something to the plot. These animals are just there because the writers needed comedic relief sidekicks for some non-existent Disney quota.
• The villain is forgettable. His design is memorable, but even his name is difficult to recall. His one saving grace is having one of the best Disney Villain Songs (and even then, "Savages" isn't really a Villain Song).
• The scenery is boring. There's an abundance of trees and not much else. I wish the villages had more focus.
• Kocoum's death scene is terrible. Bloodless Carnage is an annoying trope but this is blatant, especially compared to the Beast getting stabbed in Beauty And The Beast. There's no blood or any wounds. Where was he even shot that he died instantly?
• The movie itself seem tone deaf considering everyone with a basic understanding of American history knows what happens to the indigenous people. I've always thought of the film as taking place in an Alternate History where Pocahontas' friendship with John Smith changed the course of history. Otherwise, its ending just comes off as too depressing.

The film isn't a bad film but it's likely the weakest Renaissance film. Heck, iirc, the direct-to-video sequel was better. Pocahontas reads like a Disney clone, not an actual Disney film. It's a better version of something like The Swan Princess—it's like someone went through a list of Disney film cliches, put it in a blender, and made it into a film. It has a Disney feel but it doesn't have the heart of something like The Little Mermaid.

Edited by Pichu-kun on Jun 14th 2019 at 11:07:08 AM

I feel like the film may have worked better condensing the basics of both films into one, at least having a fuller if still Disneyfied rendition of the person's lifetime instead of making a more cliche "short sighted pioneers hassle the spiritual Native Americans" plot the impetus of the whole first film.

Edited by Psi001 on Jun 15th 2019 at 4:50:38 PM

Would Pocahontas have been better if John Smith was a dick like he was in reality? I'd say yes.

A lot of Pocahontas' problems (not all of them, but a lot of them) can be traced back to the bad idea of making it a romance story, and the "obligatory romance" approach to developing that story in the first place.

Romeo and Juliet is not a good way to approach a story where you're also attempting to approach the plight of the Native Americans.

In part because it requires you to portray both sides as equally destructive, and then force in an ending where both sides find peace in a way that of course didn't actually happen. In other part because Disney's approach to romance - especially at the time - is in making troubling situations more magical and optimistic, which naturally leads to Disneyfication, which absolutely shouldn't be applied to real world history.

Forcing Pocahontas into the role of the romantic lead in a starcrossed love story also undercuts the other role they wanted her to take as ambassador of a race victim of prejudice. That's where you get into all sorts of tropes like Nubile Savage, Going Native and so on where the conflict is reduced to just falling in love. "Just Around The Riverbend" sums up the problem pretty: ultimately Pocahontas' story is about how she was nearly forced into marriage but then runs into a charming stranger who is different from her sheltered life (basically Jasmine), but then they decided to tack a colonialist guilt story on top of it, run both at the same time, and it just comes out a mess.

I generally don't have a problem with Disney's attachment to romance (or, more accurately, I think it would be fine if they just updated their values and characterizations), but I do think that Pocahontas is one of the best examples you get from people who do have a problem with it of a movie where the romance devalued everything else.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jun 15th 2019 at 11:20:45 AM

Pretty sure at least part of the reason why Disney thought Pocahontas would be a hit because of its Amazing Message^TM. It's a somewhat naive thought, especially among people that don't know much about the history of colonialism and natives (and this was the 90s, where natives were flat Noble Savage stereotypes or caricatured mascots). I'm willing to bet that they thought the awkward "Both sides are Not So Different and prejudiced and just need to learn to get over that" aesop would be an amazing, introspective hot take on the situation between the natives and the colonists and a fresh take on racial issues. Pretty sure they thought it would be received as emotionally resonant and profound.

The film endorses a version of Baby's First Native History that's designed to be more feel good and easy to swallow than accurate, blaming the issues with racism and racially-motivated violence on a few evil people in the bunch rather than the system of colonialism as a whole.

Disney would do something similar with Zootopia, which while a good film and a good way to get people talking about issues of prejudice and racism, has a lot of...issues when it comes to its racial allegory when closely examined.

Disney were basically very arrogant about what they were doing and it backfired,that's the impression I've always got

Basically. They treated it as Oscar Bait first, instead of as a story first.

Disney's always been a bit hit or when dealing with non-Western or European cultures. They have a bit of a problem with The Theme Park Version, with preferring the idea of a culture to the stories their approaching, etc and so on, whereas they always give a stronger effort when they have something "relateably" Western to attach to.

Aladdin is an exception, but it's also an adaptation of something that is structurally very strong and easily approached from a fairy-tale point of view.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jun 15th 2019 at 11:31:01 AM

https://animationinsider1.blogspot.com/2019/06/upcoming-disneypixar-movies-revealed.html

Disney has a brand new movies in works called Dragon Empire, set to be released Thanksgiving 2020 (you can google about it)

Whilst Pixar has a new movie called Soul, directed by Pete Docter

Trying for something a bit less philosophically weighty, eh Docter?

I may not like his movies but why the sarcasm? Did he do something wrong?

The sarcasm is because he directed Up and Inside Out, and did the story for Wall-E, all of which are philosophical. Soul's title is following that trend.

No, I’m just being a smartass about making a movie about souls. I mean, I LIKE his stuff, I just think that’s a pretty hefty concept.

Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Jun 15th 2019 at 5:47:26 AM

Maybe it's about soul music.

The story of Pocahontas is always a romance, isn't it? That's how the myth works. It's a bad romance and obviously false story, but a romance story nevertheless.

Disney should have chosen a better real life-inspired myth. Or, heck, avoid real life at all costs. You risk too much by using historical characters. Anastasia was always uncomfortable since it's a romanticized story based off a murder, but it's even mofe awkward to watch after the news that her bones were found came out.

Disney wanted it to be a prestige, Oscar Bait picture, yes, but at one point it wasn't. At one point Pocahontas was supposed to have a turkey sidekick voiced by John Candy. When the film became more serious, there he went. (Candy's death didn't help matters.)

(Regarding history, I've always thought it, let's say, wrong that Anastasia had the whole thing about the zombie Rasputin plotting against Anastasia... Then it turned out the Broadway musical version got rid of him and put the actual historical fact in, and I realized the zombie Rasputin was better!)

It isn't though. Like, this might seem like a minor thing from the outside, but it's massive from a writing perspective. Romeo and Juliet ISN'T a romance and certainly not a rom com. It plays like one, but that's the point. Mercutio's death doesn't happen in a rom com. It can't happen. But it does because the play is a tragedy, not a romance.

So, Disney's Pocohontas not only misses the point of what actually happened in the historical event they're portraying (and, I also want to point out, refused the help of actual Powhatan in the production), as if that wasn't obvious enough with the 'overcome language barriers by listening to your heart!', but they also misunderstood the very story and even GENRE that they tried to base their film off of.

I stand by the musical version. Zombie!Rasputin was fun and entertaining, but he had no stakes in Anya's development. At that point, her character tension is on if she will accept her role as princess, or chase after Demetri. Then Rasputin shows up and he has NO leaning either way on her entire character arc and doesn't really matter to where the actual plot tension is. He's ALMOST an Out Of Context Villain.

Edited by InkDagger on Jun 15th 2019 at 4:36:49 AM

ONE! HUNDRED! PERCENT!