Talk:Pocahontas (1995 film)

message: Wikipedia is littered with would-be paragraphs that are little more than tangentially related sentences.
Yes, WP:PARAGRAPH says they should be used "sparingly", going on to say that "Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs."
I could somehow craft an odd sentence summarizing a main idea that those two sentences discuss and make that into one paragraph.
"Glass should be used sparingly in cars" implies that glass can be used in cars when needed.
Writing in English means that single sentence paragraphs are necessary in this article.
If it helps you to understand it better:
Wikipedia is littered with would-be paragraphs that are little more than tangentially related sentences. Yes, WP:PARAGRAPH says they should be used "sparingly", going on to say that "Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs." I could somehow craft an odd sentence summarizing a main idea that those two sentences discuss and make that into one paragraph. "Glass should be used sparingly in cars" implies that glass can be used in cars when needed. Writing in English means that single sentence paragraphs are necessary in this article.
- SummerPhDv2.0 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraphs 

message: Why Disney does not talk about the live-action remake for "Pocahontas" (1995)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.255.216.208 (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Live-action remake 

message: "Due to the complexity of the color schemes, shapes, and expressions in the animation, a total of 55 animators worked on the design of Pocahontas' character alone," I fail to see anything like a "complex color scheme" in the movie, or elaborate facial expressions. Skin tones are of one single hue all over the body! Of course, Pocahontas is pre-CGI, obviously painted on transparent cels like so many previous Disney films, but it lacks practically all hints on highlights, shadows or volume of bodies! So much that it practically looks all-2D. Even when she sings songs in closeup, there is not even a hint of skin motion, or shadow, visible. Combined with the rather short running-time, the entire production looks lowcost to me. Even the source that was given for this paragraph, 61, does state -along with the phrase "complex color schemes"- that the movie has a "more flat and geometric appearance". I would therefore think that the sentence cited is just POV with no real source backing the statement. Who wrote Pocahontas trivia on Share TV, which is no longer online, but only archived in the Wayback machine? 46.244.245.138 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design 

message: Since accuracy seems to be an issue at least on the Talk page, I think part of the discussion in here should be distilled into the Criticism section of the article. The movie WAS reviewed with reviewers pointing out several inaccuracies. What comes to my mind is that Jamestown was founded by the British, yet the soldiers clearly wear spanish helmets, something no british leader could have tolerated. Britain and Spain rivalled for the benefits of the "New World"! How could personnel on a british ship get spanish helmets? Those guys were poor and would not carry souvenirs from a another rivalling military power.
John Smith got shot by a musket. Two alternatives arise: Either the ship had a doctor on board, then such a patient would be treated on land. Or it did not. An arduous voyage of several weeks with severe malnutrition would spell certain death for a man with a shot wound in a world that did not know antibiotics, so this must be considered a plot hole. While it is not for Wikipedia to discuss plot holes, it adds to the list of inaccuracies. It just doesn't make sense. But it spared Disney from having either have a "happy-end" (which would be ever so blatantly unhistoric considering the fate of the Native Americans and of the historic Pocahontas, or have a tragic end, which Disney wouldn't dare. So the took "dramatic freedom" to disguise the fact, that the historic Pocahontas was no young woman, but merely a girl, and was captured and held for ransom by the settlers, and "encouraged to convert" to Christianity, as the Wikipedia article about the historic Pocahontas euphemistically calls her alienation from her culture.
One could say Pocahontas is just another fairy tale told by the Disney company. And bear in mind, production was conceived just two years ahead of the "500th" anniversary of Columbus, so this must have played a role in the internal view of the _business model_, so much, that historic accuracy was never really on their mind. Although they realized, that Native America considered the 500th anniversary a day of shame, and nationwide protests were organized. So Disney realized they had to have _some_ political correctness.
I will rather not go into detail, why Pocahontas should not be called a Disney princess, although that term was coined earlier with a different scope. The daughter of a chief is nothing like a princess. In fact, it could be discussed if they had chiefs at all, and how they came to power. Many were elected! Chieftainship is a model introduced by Europeans, who thought the "Savages" MUST have had some kind of leader. In their minds was no space for female leaders, which several Native Americans on the East have had, or full-blown democracies that elected their leaders. But eventually, these Native democracies were copied by European settlers. 46.244.245.138 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: The last sentence of the introduction states, "According to critics, Pocahontas has influenced all subsequent films," citing this Atlantic article. Nothing in the article supports this contention; at most, it argues that Pocahontas influenced later Disney movies and heroines. I'm replacing it with the following statement, but others may wish to suggest alternatives: "According to critics, the depiction of Pocahontas as an empowered heroine influenced subsequent Disney films like Mulan and Frozen."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theturbolemming (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence 

message: I’m a tad bit confused about the different premiere information that can be shown on Wikipedia, like Lilo and Stitch, The Emperor’s New groove, Looney tunes back in action, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid simply had “premiere” written above their full release date, but movies like chicken little has “El Capitan theatre” written at the part where it’s premiere should be, so why do many films get different treatments on what’s written on the premiere of the film? DrkWebber (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiere 

message: The redirect Pocahontas (1995 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Pocahontas (1995 film]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]