fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2598 ]

[ SECRET POST #2598 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2598 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 031 secrets from Secret Submission Post #371.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Pretty sure everybody over the age of eight knows that Disney stories are fiction and not to be taken as history lessons. Are you trolling or just desperate to be angry about something?

Pocahontas gives us a hilarious version of coastal Virginia (now with moose!), David Ogden Stiers stealing the show, and Mel Gibson playing the male half of a couple that brings warring cultures together in peace and harmony. Lulz like that don't come around every day.

Don Bluth's Anastasia, on the other hand, taught me everything I know about Russian history.

I think that movie is why I gave Bartok's music a chance. Not sure why they named a Russian bat after a Hungarian composer though. Unless there's a Russian Bartok that I don't know about. Maybe I'm just woefully ignorant.

No middle class, revolutions every time you turn around, sorcerers coming back from the dead, and talking bats. Yep, that's how I remember AP Euro History.

Pocahontas wins in my book. It takes place in my native state.

sorcerers coming back from the dead, and talking bats

...what is this, and where can I find it, please? I am completely indifferent to it being historically inaccurate.

http://www.amazon.com/Anastasia-Meg-Ryan/dp/B000SVZIGC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392252085&sr=8-1&keywords=anastasia

It's a fun movie, Anon.

Edited 2014-02-13 00:42 (UTC)

tyvm!

That movie is horribly inaccurate though.

Inaccurate? Anastasia? You must be thinking of a different movie.

I know, right? We all know Rasputin was fanning flames of discontent and that's why there was rebellion. No societal or economic reasons at all.

Plus monsters! And a puppy!

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-02-13 01:53 (UTC) - Expand

I detest that movie--the Russian Imperial family still has relatives who are alive, I can't imagine they were thrilled to see their family's tragedy butchered that way and made fodder as a silly cartoon. It's genuinely offensive.

I got my cat around that time and since I'm a huge fan of Russian imperial history, was torn between naming her either Anastasia or Tatiana. I finally decided on the latter because I didn't want to have to deal with people asking me "oh, did you name her after the cartooooon?" and then I'd be forced to go off on a rant.

Queen Elizabeth 11 and Prince Philip are both related to that family, so yes they have a lot of relatives who are still alive. Queen Victoria had a large family.

I do agree with you in that the family were butchered and it's a nasty event, so films like that don't feel very respectful. Even if you were on the side of the bolsheviks, it's still belittles the whole thing.

I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt re: the intelligence of the average adult, but one visit to Facebook suggests that you're being really optimistic. There are people who still think they're striking a blow against The Man by sharing that Neiman Marcus cookie recipe, and you think that "everybody over age 8" knows that the colonists and American Indians weren't always best buddies?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

OK, some people are stupid. The answer to that is to improve our education system/demand higher standards from students/educate the populace, rather than rage about a movie from 1995.

But it's not an either/or choice. We don't have to say, welp, can't point out problematic media because we have to improve the education system instead. We can multi-task! Addressing issues like this when they appear in popular media aimed at young audiences seems like one very sensible way to tackle the problem.

How exactly is Pocahontas problematic? It's not perfect, but the characters are pretty balanced. Neither of the two cultures is presented as being solely good or evil. Pocahontas has some 'mystical native chick who is totes in touch with nature' stuff going on, but she's pretty tough and has her own autonomy.

The problem is not the movie. The problem is ignorant people trying to blame the movie for their ignorance.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-02-13 10:42 (UTC) - Expand

When I was a kid and Pocahontas was first coming out there were children's magazine articles and such about the real story of Pocahontas. I remember similar articles about lions and stuff for Lion King. I also had a VHS version of Sleeping Beauty where it was followed by a little making-of doc, explaining the ballet and the artistic choices that were made.

Not much else to add to the conversation, I just liked that stuff a lot and thought it was cool that Disney wanted to share facts about the story or where it came from. Do they still do that?

I don't have any dvds, just some old vhs tapes that are at my parents' house. I would think that if there were any tidbits/factoids/making of features they'd be on the dvds. I agree with you, that kind of stuff can be fascinating.

I do have a memory of seeing a Disney-sponsored magazine do an article on Pocahontas' life itself back then, so it is kind of nice that they did that.

At the same time I do feel like people have a point in not liking the movie for going by a false story for the movie. Why paint John Smith as a good guy at all if you know the real history paints him as kind of a dick? Why did they need to use his own name for the male lead? More kids would see the movie than would see the little blurb in the magazine. Kind of eh.

Pocahontas is still one of my favorite Disney princesses along with Belle and Jasmine, but knowing that Disney decided to use the tall tale spun by John Smith to make himself look good wasn't that great.

The fact that there are so many adults who think these movies are great and positive suggests otherwise.

I remember the first time I saw Pocahontas and was like "wtf, giant cliffs in coastal VA?" D: Later, I had a professor in college who loathed the movie and one of our areas in my American Lit class was John Smith's journals and boooy was he an ass.

Smith was a total dick. But a huuuuuuge part of my love-hate relationship with this movie is how gloriously wrong Disney got everything.

That, and remembering a time before I knew Christian Bale was a jerk.

...Christian Bale is a jerk? D:

/illusions shattered

He had a melt-down and screamed at a cameraman for some reason. It was caught on camera and is a perfect example of a major movie star being a jerk to an ordinary person. And he's at least partially responsible for the awfulness that is Terminator 4. He had the film re-written so he got more screen time. To be fair, I'm certain that movie would've been just as terrible without him.

So watch Pocahontas and marvel at the fact that that douchebag plays Thomas.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only