I see it both ways. On the one hand, Disney can't be counted on to be historically accurate, as their goal is to entertain and not to inform. On the other hand, cultures and individuals demand a certain amount of respect.

I lean towards the more critical side, personally.

Definitely this. The move Pocahontas did nothing disrespectful in my opinion. I am part Native American and I don't see why people are offended by Disney movies. There was nothing disrespectful.

If I had to pick, yeah this one. The movie would have been fine if they wanted to do a story about a Native American in the same way but just had given her an original name.

Great job with these posts though, ace2000!

^
re: #1: there's plenty bad about the movie even outside the whole "both sides are wrong" angle and the totally disrespectful treatment of someone who actually existed - the villain is corny and stupid, all the dumb animal sidekicks who don't need to be in such a serious movie, etc. not everybody who hates it is just doing it because they're salty about how historically inaccurate it is.

@Aang _Lite_: Thanks! Credit to BelleAnastasia, though; I was looking at several polls of hers from four years ago and thought she had a cool idea :)

The historical inaccuracy of Pocahontas has never bothered me, so I went with this. But after reading the comment for #2, I might rethink it a little. I didn't know that the story of the actual Pocahontas was so dark, and while I don't think the Disney movie goes out of its way to be disrespectful or anything, I can definitely see why some would be uncomfortable with it.

@UnholyNoise true, the film really isn't that great upon rewatch. Especially with how they make it seem like it all ends peacefully and the natives never go through a genocide. My main point though was that at least without the name one of its main faults wouldn't exist.

Unholynoise, why are you mad about animals in a Disney movie? if they made Pocahontas a bad character, that would be disrespectful. But they made her a good character. It's not disrespectful.

@aang lite: the second part of that wasn't aimed at you. i generally agree.

@quishy11: ain't even mad, i just think the super obvious comic relief characters don't fit the tone of a movie that disney meant to be more serious than what they usually do, same problem i have with hunchback.

imo it doesn't matter whether they made her "good" or not, you can still do damage to the memory of someone - and this is a real person - even if you mean well. if disney is centering a movie around this person who actually lived and died they have an obligation to aim for accuracy and not just for whatever they think sells. imagine this sort of movie except about like, anne frank, or someone more recently historical and it's easier to see how ridiculous it is. like aang lite said, they could have avoided some of this by making it about some fictional person and not one who really existed.

Same issues as to why anastasia wasn't good either

Agree with ace2000 and Aang_Lite_. I see both sides, but I lean more towards this one.

UnholyNoise, oh yeah I agree with that then. Especially in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I didn't mind it in Pocahontas though.

Hunchback sucks. It doesn't know if it wants to be a serious drama or a dumb kiddy film
.

^that too

I respect that people dislike this movie and their reasons for it. It isn't cool, but i kind of agree with disnerd too.

As a character, I definitely admire Pocahontas. She deserves as much credit as Mulan for stopping a war.