Mulan vs. Pocahontas.

[SonicFan]

Which history inspired Disney movie is better?

I say "Mulan", it was entertaining, had better animation and a better more lovable heroine.

[Hiya Animation]

Mulan.
Pocahantas is my least favorite movie of the "new era" of Disney (90s on) next to maybe Brother Bear.

Mulan is one of my favorites.

James :zim:

[SonicFan]

Brother Bear was actually 2000's not 90's.

[The Weed Of Cri]

Mulan was better animated, had a better story, didn't try to ram its message down our throats, and because the legend is less well-known here in America, the liberties they take with historical fact are less annoying.




On the other hand.......Pocahontas was really hot.

[AdamYJ]

I didn't know Mulan was "history inspired". I thought Fa Mulan came from a folk story. Then again, Daniel Boone and Davy Crocket were both real men who went on to become folk heroes here in the US, so it's possible she's both.

[GagaMan]

That's a no-brainer. Mulan hands down. Poco had good animation, but that's about it.

[Hordesman]

The story of Pocahontas used in the movie's more of a historical legend that stems from revisions John Smith made to his memoirs _after_ Pocahontas had blazed her way through England pitching tobacco. It's a story most historians consider suspect since the first version published of Smith's New World book didn't mention the rescue.

[Sr.Infierno]

Mulan

Without Eddie Murphy, it would have been one of Disney's Top 5 films easily

Pocahantus was just meh.

[Hiya Animation]

Brother Bear was actually 2000's not 90's.

I know. I said 90s on. That includes the 2000s.

James :zim:

[Kagetsu]

Mulan is one of my "top animated movies". I had no interest in even seeing pocahontas so I can't really compare the actual movie.

[psifreek28]

Im probably alone on this one, but I would say Pocahontas...When i was little i wouldve said Mulan over Poca, but now...I think Pocahontas has become my second fav disney film next to Sleeping Beauty. The story, the music, the vocals, everything is just soooo WOW!....

Anyways i still love mulan.

[Dudley]

Mulan is better than Pochohantas.
Plus she's a good role model for children everywhere!

[ToOn~g@l]

Mulan of course. she kicks ass and is not looking for a guy to help her out in a tough situation, she can take care of herself.

Pocahontas can too but, eh I didn't feel that she was a good heroin.

[tb4000]

To show how shallow I am, I oringally thought this was a thread about which character was hotter.:shrug:

[Warrior Kitana]

While I have a soft spot for Pocahontas, I have to say Mulan overall. Much more entertaining story, funny characters (Eddie Murphy as Mushu was great!), personally (the herione) Mulan was more fun and interesting as well. Despite all this I thought Pocahontas was a good herione as well. She was brave, followed her heart, and stood up for what she believed in which I found pretty admirable as well.

[Luna]

I really love both movies(both are among my fave Disney movies,along with The Little Mermaid,Lilo and Stitch,and Beauty and the Beast)...but in my opinion,Mulan was the better film...It was funnier(Mushu and Cri-Kee made me laugh alot),and I liked the ending better....Both films have great songs("Reflection" is my favorite song from Mulan,and "If I Never Knew You" is my fave from Pocahontas) and animation...

[SonicFan]

Pocahontas was a hottie, but i have a fetish for asian girls so i prefer Mulan when she is not in drag.

[Arsenal]

Which history inspired Disney movie is better?

I want to go on record as saying "Pocahontas" totally disregarded history for entertainment purposes.

First, the romance between the original John and Pocahontas is fiction. Second, there was a fifty-year difference between the two.

"Pocahontas" is barely "history-inspired." It's one thing when Disney sugarcoats fairy tales (like "The Little Mermaid." In the original short story, she died.) But Pocahontas is revisionist history.

[DisneyBoy]

If you've listened to the creators comments at all, on the special edition DVD or otherwise, you'd know that they've always been very frank about the fact that Pocahontas is inspired by true events, and not setting out to depict them according to fact.

When I look at any film critically, what it ultimately boils down to is "Was it a successful piece of entertainment that I'm glad I saw?" Now, entertainment can of course carry a message, as most films do, or be based on fact, like some documentaries, but even there, you can't forget that you're watching a film. Filmmakers are craftmen/women.

In that light, Pocahontas far exceeds Mulan in every possible way. Musically, the film isn't overly concerned with trying to please. Take the song "If I Never Knew You", the John Smith/Pocahontas love theme. It was worked throughout the picture, but removed because there was a fear among the higher ups that kids wouldn't be interested. It's presence is still felt though, as it was an integral part of the score and picture overall.

Many things about Mulan felt inserted for the sake of the audience and not the film, which I felt wasn't particularily sure of itself. In trying to be truer to facts, and heavy-handed with the idea of empowering women (instead of objectifying them, as the studio has done in almost every case) the film sacrificed a sense of self. I left the theatre knowing less about the Mulan character than I did about what Disney wanted me to be thinking and feeling.

Pocahontas, on the other hand uses all it's resources to sweep you off into the characters and environments it depicts. Which isn't to say I liked the film at all upon my first viewing of it. In fact, it bored me stiff. But for some reason...I went back and watched it again. It was only after four viewings during a period of several years that I came to really understand the picture. It's a romantic period musical. It never pretends it isn't. The film is flowing with it's own sense of style, from the trees to the lead's hair. When Pocahontas sings of the beauty of nature, it's in keeping with her character.

Which isn't to say that Mulan is by any means a tool used to garner a reaction from us. Her loneliness and isolation in the film's opening scenes could have been the picture's driving force. But in underlining Eddie Murphy's involvement, the tension is undercut. This character is for all intents and purposes a "new" Genie. And why? Because the opportunity arose to feature one in the picture, or because the material lent itself to it? They wanted too much from this film. They wanted a comedy, a drama and an action picture. Few films in the Disney roster have successfully pulled of more than two of those genres, let alone all three. Here, the elements are all fighting for our attention, and by the end, I simply wasn't sure what I'd seen.

Worse than that, Mulan's decision to "become a man" doesn't spring as much from her outcast status as it does from the need to protect her father. Those elements are in conflict too. Is this a film about choosing your own roles, or about sacrificing for those you love?

Pocahontas is about seeing beyond appearances, more than anything else. That's what she chooses to do, all throughout the picture. Mulan's origins as used as a springboard for her reactionnary decisions. I suppose the same could be said of Pocahontas too, as it's hard to imagine what she would have done if John Smith hadn't come along. Then again, like Ariel, she was a character who made a point of pursuing what she felt was right on her own. Mulan knows she doesn't fit in, but never really chose to do anything about it. Saving her father was an excuse to kind of deal with her issues, while Ariel would have stuck to collecting her treasures and interacting with humans even without Eric around, and Pocahontas would have likely continued to be more accepting of the strangers invading her world. They were being themselves, Mulan was not, and had no plan to change that. And yet this is the film Disney so proudly touted as trailblazing in it's portrayal of women.

Beyond the lead characters though, Mulan as a picture is little more than the sum of it's parts. Part action flick, part attempt at feminism, part comedy (though that's hardly successful), part drama. Pocahontas has the confidence to be what it is, even if you don't get it. The songs stem from the characters and situations. No one breaks out into song without a really good reason, and when there's no need for it, the score does it for them.

Which film reaches into your chest and really touches something long after you've last seen it? For me, that's an easy one. I've seen Mulan twice now, and while I might watch it once more in my life, I don't see enough to bring me back. Pocahontas was a package I couldn't understand for a while, but now happily "get".

Mulan just caters to Disney's demands without successfully manipulating the audience to the point that they don't know they're being manipulated. My favorite film of Disney's is Sleeping Beauty, but I'm aware that it's a manipulation and not nearly as whole a picture as was created in Pocahontas.

I also want to point out that there's something to be said for choosing what goes in. You may like ice cream and steak and salad and string beans and coffee, and might think them essential to daily living, but putting them all in a blender and intaking them at once won't be satisfying. Mulan is a big buffet you're forced to eat, all the while knowing the individual pieces aren't good with one another. Pocahontas is a simple cohesive meal, and even if you're not loving it now, when you come back with a new perspective, you just might see what you've been missing.

[Luna]

Actually,for the 10th Anniversary Pocahontas DVD,they fully animated the song "If I Never Knew You",and put it in the film(it's part of the scene when Pocahontas goes to visit John Smith after he's been captured)....It's become my favorite scene out of any Disney movie....the animation is beautiful,and hearing the song sung by Mel Gibson and Judy Kuhn(as opposed to the end credit version sung by John Secada and Shanice) is awesome...

[RedNinja84]

Mulan was better and the cool song when they did their armt training.

[fop_jediliz]

I like both. Pocahontas I was first opposed to seeing. I called her a Disneyesque Barbie. Then I saw the movie. I just fell in love with it (mostly with Meeko). Mulan I rented and I loved it. I bought the video. Then I bought the Special Edition DVD. I also own the 10th Anniversary of Pocahontas DVD. And I own Pocahontas II on video (hoping for a special edition dvd soon). I liked Pocahontas II better than Mulan II, since the sequel to Pocahontas was a little closer to her life (She did marry John Rolfe later on).

So, I like them both, but Pocahontas is my favorite I think. And its all because of a loveable mischievious Raccoon named Meeko. :)

[Hordesman]

Actually,for the 10th Anniversary Pocahontas DVD,they fully animated the song "If I Never Knew You",and put it in the film(it's part of the scene when Pocahontas goes to visit John Smith after he's been captured)....It's become my favorite scene out of any Disney movie....the animation is beautiful,and hearing the song sung by Mel Gibson and Judy Kuhn(as opposed to the end credit version sung by John Secada and Shanice) is awesome...

It is a beautiful song, and I thought it was on its way to being a great scene until the animal sidekicks showed up.

[Monterey Jack]

On the other hand.......Pocahontas was really hot.

Damn right. :D

http://www.devilgraphics.com/pocahontas/apr5_pocahontas_disney2.jpg

[Rick Jones]

I like Pocahontas but I love Mulan. The avalanche scene is one of my favorites.

[Master Toon]

I like Pocahontas more. It teaches us that we can all get along no matter how different we are from each other. If this is about the females themselves I'll still say Pocahontas because was hotter.


Mulan is better than Pochohantas.
Plus she's a good role model for children everywhere!

When someone tells you that you can't do something, crossdress? :confused:

[AlgeaX]

I'd say Mulan is by far the better film. while Pocahontas had very impressive music and animation, it was just too obnoxiously preachy for me to really get into.

Besides, Pocahontas never inspired anything as awesome as this! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06DISKajss)

[Flame Alchemist]

Besides, Pocahontas never inspired anything as awesome as this! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V06DISKajss)
That was great!
"Gohan, I'll make a man out of you!"
"I'm only four!" :D

I haven't seen Pocahontas, but I suppose I should. My sister has the VHS tape somewhere. Mulan is one of my favorite Disney films (along with other Renaissance films like Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Tarzan, etc.) because Mulan isn't some princess chasing after a "charming prince" and getting into a whole mess of trouble only he can fix. Mulan defeated an entire army of Huns, and then kicked the Huns' leader's ass on top of the Imperial City rooftops. She isn't inspired to do something because of a man, she just happens to win one over because she kicks tons of ass.

I haven't seen Mulan II, but I heard Mulan was downgraded and isn't as much of a bad-ass as she was in the original film.

[dothesmartthing]

I pick Pocahontas because I can recall studying her life in fifth grade, which I find enjoyable. Then my whole class watched the Pocahontas film, and that was fun as well. I still like some soundtracks from the movie, especially "Colors of the Wind," the version sung by Vanessa Williams.

[warnerbroman]

well Mulan would win in a fight but Poca is hotter

[Dr.Pepper]

I'll say Mulan just because I don't remember much of Pocohantas other than I thought the humming bird was awesome when I was 5.

[TokyoGirl5]

I like them both, but I have to say Mulan because I enjoyed both the original and sequel, where with Pocahontas I only enjoyed the original.

[judyindisguise]

Which history inspired Disney movie is better?

I say "Mulan", it was entertaining, had better animation and a better more lovable heroine.


Mulan fell short for me. I remember seeing the poster for it - it showed Mulan in warrior gear, mounted on her war horse. I really thought the movie was going to kick butt. Instead, it was about an awkward, rather bland girl, a real Mary Sue IMO, followed around by a loud obnoxious shrimpy dragon. I think it was far too Americanized, and too formulaic as well. A real disappointment.

Ditto for Pocahontas, except for the song "Colors of the Wind" - that was awesome. So beautiful. But the rest of the film was disappointing. Too bad.

[Neo Yi]

Mulan fell short for me. I remember seeing the poster for it - it showed Mulan in warrior gear, mounted on her war horse. I really thought the movie was going to kick butt. Instead, it was about an awkward, rather bland girl, a real Mary Sue IMO, followed around by a loud obnoxious shrimpy dragon. I think it was far too Americanized, and too formulaic as well. A real disappointment.

I don't see the Mary Sue approach. Mulan was a girl who largely wasn't sure of her own potential and abilities. Proof in point is when she joined the army. It wasn't just to help her father, subconsciously, she wanted to show she can better herself. She struggled to complete its courses and she barely managed to make it, but when she did, that was a leg up for her confidence. To me, she's a step up from Pocahontas because she was an insecure young girl who improved over the course of the series. Ya know, character development.

I'm also going to kindly disagree on the Americanized approach either. Where exactly in the film was it considered too "American"? With the exception of Mushu's personality, of course.

[Mad Mod 49]

Instead, it was about an awkward, rather bland girl, a real Mary Sue IMO, followed around by a loud obnoxious shrimpy dragon.


And again you show that you don't really understand the meaning of the word "Mary Sue". :yawn:

If you don't like the movie, fine. But accusing it's lead of being a Mary Sue just because you don't like her is stupid.

[Master Toon]

Mulan fell short for me. I remember seeing the poster for it - it showed Mulan in warrior gear, mounted on her war horse. I really thought the movie was going to kick butt. Instead, it was about an awkward, rather bland girl, a real Mary Sue IMO, followed around by a loud obnoxious shrimpy dragon. I think it was far too Americanized, and too formulaic as well. A real disappointment.

Ditto for Pocahontas, except for the song "Colors of the Wind" - that was awesome. So beautiful. But the rest of the film was disappointing. Too bad.

What part of the movie was Americanized? Before you respond, let me remind you that Mulan is based off of a Chinese story. It was not made up by Disney.

[Ed Liu]

What part of the movie was Americanized? Before you respond, let me remind you that Mulan is based off of a Chinese story. It was not made up by Disney.

"Based off" is the key word there. The starting bits about how Mulan doesn't know how to act like a girl and the entire rescuing the emperor part weren't in any version of the story I've ever read, and the entire supporting cast and the love interest were all made up. In the end, Mulan has about as much to do with the original Chinese story as Aladdin has to do with the original story from the Arabian Nights (http://books.google.com/books?id=bo0wQH1rzPIC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA353) (which is to say not much). I don't know that I'd call it "Americanized" as much as "Disney-fied" (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but it's definitely not the way a Chinese movie would have done the same story.

[Neo Yi]

I don't know that I'd call it "Americanized" as much as "Disney-fied" (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but it's definitely not the way a Chinese movie would have done the same story.

I'm just as aware of the original tale, so this may be the best term I can agree with.

[judyindisguise]

"Based off" is the key word there. The starting bits about how Mulan doesn't know how to act like a girl and the entire rescuing the emperor part weren't in any version of the story I've ever read, and the entire supporting cast and the love interest were all made up. In the end, Mulan has about as much to do with the original Chinese story as Aladdin has to do with the original story from the Arabian Nights (http://books.google.com/books?id=bo0wQH1rzPIC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA353) (which is to say not much). I don't know that I'd call it "Americanized" as much as "Disney-fied" (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but it's definitely not the way a Chinese movie would have done the same story.


Thank you. I remember reading a news story sometime back about how Mulan fared in China. As I recall, it fared badly, because it didn't reflect Chinese sensibilities. There were a few pointed comments about the dragon in particular; I remember a Chinese lady in the story who said that Mushu didn't act at all like a "real" Chinese dragon. A real Chinese dragon, she stated, would feel badly because he had "lost face" by failing the family he's supposed to be guardian for. Instead, Mushu was mouthy and defiant. All I was saying was: Mulan was not the film I hoped it would be, given the story it's based on. The spunky grandma, the loud spastic animal sidekicks...meh. That's stock Disney formula that didn't fit in well with the actual legend, and while I realize that Disney always changes the stories it adapts, most of the time it improves on them. That wasn't the case, I feel, with Mulan.

And as for my use of the term "Mary Sue", okay, maybe that was inaccurate in that, unlike the perfect perky character that term usually describes, Mulan did have flaws. But she overcame them in a way I didn't find believable - just convenient. She lacked the grit that would have made her eventual success as a warrior convincing. That is my opinion. As always, you are not required to agree.

[Dixie_Chick89]

I really like both movies, but I'll choose Mulan.

[Master Toon]

"Based off" is the key word there. The starting bits about how Mulan doesn't know how to act like a girl and the entire rescuing the emperor part weren't in any version of the story I've ever read, and the entire supporting cast and the love interest were all made up. In the end, Mulan has about as much to do with the original Chinese story as Aladdin has to do with the original story from the Arabian Nights (http://books.google.com/books?id=bo0wQH1rzPIC&lpg=PA1&pg=PA353) (which is to say not much). I don't know that I'd call it "Americanized" as much as "Disney-fied" (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but it's definitely not the way a Chinese movie would have done the same story.


I'm just as aware of the original tale, so this may be the best term I can agree with.


Thank you. I remember reading a news story sometime back about how Mulan fared in China. As I recall, it fared badly, because it didn't reflect Chinese sensibilities. There were a few pointed comments about the dragon in particular; I remember a Chinese lady in the story who said that Mushu didn't act at all like a "real" Chinese dragon. A real Chinese dragon, she stated, would feel badly because he had "lost face" by failing the family he's supposed to be guardian for. Instead, Mushu was mouthy and defiant. All I was saying was: Mulan was not the film I hoped it would be, given the story it's based on. The spunky grandma, the loud spastic animal sidekicks...meh. That's stock Disney formula that didn't fit in well with the actual legend, and while I realize that Disney always changes the stories it adapts, most of the time it improves on them. That wasn't the case, I feel, with Mulan.

So it should've been a serious mature film that risked alienating it's target audience? (I don't know if it's true) but I heard that in the original Cinderella story the Wicked Stepsister's had their eyes pecked out by crows. I don't think it would be fair to criticize Disney for leaving that part out.

[Ed Liu]

So it should've been a serious mature film that risked alienating it's target audience? (I don't know if it's true) but I heard that in the original Cinderella story the Wicked Stepsister's had their eyes pecked out by crows. I don't think it would be fair to criticize Disney for leaving that part out.
I don't see anybody suggesting that Mulan should have been a serious film. It just doesn't use much more from the source material other than surface details. It's a Disney Fairy Tale in exotic clothing (and, to be honest, I think the art style incorporated details from Chinese artistic traditions nicely, like the way Mulan's horse has way skinny legs). Again, at least to me, this is not necessarily a criticism. You don't go into a Starbucks expecting to get a beer. But putting on lederhosen does not make you German, wearing a kimono does not make you Japanese, and borrowing a Chinese fairy tale to tell the story you were going to tell anyway doesn't really do much to make Mulan a "Chinese" movie.

I think judyindisguise's criticism, which I only partially agree with, is that it could have borrowed more from the source material and original traditions to tell a different story that was truer to the spirit and sensibilities of the native country while still being a Disney Fairy Tale. I say maybe, but that I'd rather just see the comparable Chinese movie or a true cross-Pacific collaboration. I love Aladdin and Lilo & Stitch, but I don't think either one is (or has to be) a very accurate look at the cultures of the Middle East or Hawaii.

Also, there are lots of different versions of the Cinderella story (http://www.pitt.edu/%7Edash/type0510a.html). A lot of versions involve axes and knives to make footwear adjustments (and not to the shoe), but some also involve more severe punishments to the wicked stepsisters like what you describe. I don't think the story suffers tremendously for its absence and I don't think anybody is suggesting that Disney should have left that stuff in.

It also dawns on me that I never answered the original question. I'd have to give the nod to Mulan, but only because I never watched Pocahontas (and, honestly, never felt much need to). Take the following with a grain of salt, but I knew a guy who was working for Disney at the time, and he told me that Pocahontas got greenlit because the management at the time held days where anybody could walk in and pitch a movie. One of the artists brought in a poster and said, "My idea is, 'Walt Disney's Pocahontas'!" Management went nuts and said, "So what's the story?" The artist kind of stood there and said, "Uh, I don't know. I just made a poster." Management didn't care and did the movie anyway, but most of the stuff that I don't like about the Disney movies of the period seem in full force in Pocahontas.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I have to go with Mulan because everything about Pocahontas is historically inaccurate and, in sanitizing and Disneyfying the story instead of dealing with the real truths about it and infantalizing Native Americans as mystic spirit people cliches and presenting Pocahontas as sexy, buxom Barbie Doll who falls for and is a prize for a white man, racist as all hell. I know the movie probably thought it had an "anti-racist" message, but it just goes to show that even good intentions can lead you astray. And that positive stereotypes are still stereotypes.

And at least Hua Mulan is probably just a fictional character from a poem. Disney's Pocahontas is a feature length lie about a real person. Told to kids.

[Light Lucario]

I've enjoyed both movies, but I enjoyed Mulan more than Pocahontas. Mulan had a really interesting story about an insecure girl trying to find herself. In the process of being a solider, she discovers her strength to save China. I always liked that about the movie. As for Pocahontas, it had some nice songs, like "Colors of the Wind," "Just Around the Riverbed" and the ending song "If I Never Knew You", that were well done and the animation was nice as well. However, as I got older, the whole Barbie and Ken designs for Pocahontas and John Smith were a bit odd for the film. Plus, I didn't find the storyline or the character development to be as interesting as it was presented in Mulan.

As for the historical inaccuracies for Pocahontas, I never really had too much of a problem with it. Sure, it was kind of a bother that they turned Pocahontas' life into a kind of love story, but I try to just be in the moment when watching a movie. Besides that, I honestly couldn't see Disney making a family-friendly film on Pocahontas' real life story. Though, I think that Disney could have done something with suggesting people to read about Pocahontas' real life story during the end credits, just as they did at the end of the sequel. At least they would have acknowledged the real story that way.

[CaptainCanada]

Disney's Pocahontas is a feature length lie about a real person. Told to kids.
That's taking things a bit seriously. Historical personages are mythologized all the time; telling Pocahontas in that fashion isn't any different from any of the versions of Robin Hood's story that feature Richard the Lionheart and Prince John (including Disney's).

I liked both movies a lot; Mulan is probably a better production overall, though I think Pocahontas probably has slightly better music.

And Pocahontas was seriously hot.

[Dawalk]

I like Mulan more and I never saw Pocahontas in it's entirety. I saw like bits and pieces of the latter. But I did have that couple of issues of the Disney Adventures comics that featured Pocahontas. One reason why I'm connected to Mulan more is possibly due to the simple fact that the eponymous character can be considered to be the very first Disney heroine who both boys and girls can enjoy, which makes her unique among the other heroines. I like that it's so action-and-adventure-packed. I never noticed nor thought of the fact and comparison that Pocahontas is just a Native Barbie, nor that John Smith is just an English Ken, but I guess I can see it now that I came across the mention of those here. I never saw the inaccuracies of other versions of original tales as being made much of a big thing out of nothing. They're just adaptations, I thought that they were supposed to be about not always following how the original stories went and that not everything has to be 100% accurate, and be carbon copies of the originals. At least when other versions twist or put a spin on the originals, we can tell which is which and what separates them from one another.