#john rolfe

WHO MADE THIS?!?!

WHOOOOOO!?!

Holy sh- wait.

Okay yeah, kiss.

Anyways, John Rolfe is hot. Period.

I just remembered that these guys existed and it kinda reflects on how I view my interpretation of Apollo as a character

I would personally see him more inline with this character, vibes and appearance wise (when I drew my version of Apollo I completely forgot this guy even existed) Diplomatic with some faults

Rather than him below. This look is very close to how he's depicted in the Percy Jackson series and some other media.

Speaking of Disney, I think their version of Hercules reminds me more of Apollo than his namesake in some aspects such as youthful energy, his appearance taking after Zeus, having an immortal mother, and setting off to prove his place in the world to the eyes of the gods. Herc also has many similarities to Apollo's son, Ion, in the play by Euripides, such as being a demigod, divine parentage and abandonment, physical proof of being divinity, being the target of traps and trials and being a threat to a relative's political position.

From memory, I distinctly remember the Pocahontas' behind the scenes stating that the crew was focused on making a big hit, that was the mindset the people working on Pocahontas 1 were in, they wanted to make a movie that made big buck, and that's exactly why the movie is so beautiful on a technical scale yet so hollow: It's a high-budget cashgrab, it may look polished and have had strong marketing, but at it's core it lacks authenticity and identity because it's trying to replicate a formula, not to innovate in any way or tell a meaningful story.

Now, i'm not saying the crew working on it didn't give it's best or that they didn't TRY to tell a story that resonated with the audience, but for me, it's clear as day that the culture surrounding the project sucked the emotion out of it without the crew even realizing it, as evidenced by the cutting of the scene featuring the song 'If I Never Knew You' all because Kids' wanted to see more action, prioritizing their opinion over the fact the song was so integral to the movie that it's still echoed throughout it in the final product, as it was meant to be THE song of the movie. Basically Pocahontas 1, at it's core, it's hollow, and that's because the movie's core foundation is: "What can we do to make a big buck?" and didn't really ask questions to dig deeper to this foundation, and the movie suffers as a result.

Pocahontas 2, on the other hand, has a different set of working conditions, and more importantly, a different objective: It's a direct-to-dvd movie that was made to address and fix the critiques made by native-americans to the movie. Already, the 2nd movie has a more complex and rich "WHY?", and while it's not perfect by any means, this deeper reason elevates the movie as a result, specially on an emotional level, and that's the reason it sticks with you more than the first, because we, as humans, are EMOTIONAL beings, if a story doesn't touch our fibers, we forget it, so when our brain compares the technically rich first part vs. the emotionally resonant 2nd one, the last one wins. But what makes the 2nd part more emotionally rich? Easy, the 2nd one had no high-standards to make big-buck, only to fix and address, and the elements needed to take the story from the myth to the actual events (kinda, not really lol) make it so that in order for the writers to accomplish their goal, they HAVE to do the opposite of the first movie, that is: To break away from the Disney formula and tell a unconventional story (In Disney's standards of course).

The 1st movie was a plot-driven Romeo and Juliet story that tries so hard to polish the atmosphere surrounding the emotional highs in order for you to care about it that it forgets to do just that, and you end up with characters that end up being driven BY the story and not the drivers OF the story. By the end of the first film, you don't particularly hate any of them, but you don't exactly like them either, and that's because their struggle was, again, a formula forced upon them, not one that really concerns them as characters. The 2nd Movie however, at it's core, it's a journey of integrity (Pocahontas) and Self-discovery (John Rolfe's botched arc.), it is character-driven first and foremost, but unlike the first movie, the focus on characters doesn't lead to a hollow and superficial plot, instead the two work in tandem to prop each other up.

Additionally, the bittersweet goodbye at the end of the first movie offers the writers the biggest blessing in disguise for the making for this movie, as they are FORCED to confront who John Smith and Pocahontas are OUTSIDE of the Romeo and Juliet plot. John Smith admittedly gets the short end of the stick, only having a handful of solo scenes (or really, a handful of overall scenes in the movie) and remaining practically unchanged in this sequel. No arc. No change.

Pocahontas however, really gets to shine in this sequel, which makes sense, given that she is the protagonist, in this sequel, the story isn't just happening to her, but rather, it happens BECAUSE of her, and most importantly, because of WHO SHE IS, which is the central part of her steadfast character arc: The struggle and doubts that she faces in wanting to remain true to her people's custom and beliefs whilst trying to do everything necessary to end the war.

The narrative is now explicitly addressing the first movie's problem with pocahontas' passivity as a character, because if you think about it, over the course of the first movie, Pocahontas was told by others what to do: Her father, the spirits, grandmother willow, John Smith, etc., while she did act, she never really did so purely because of her own willingness, it was always tied to what someone else said, the 2nd movie had the option of turning this into a explicit flaw for her to overcome in a Positive character arc, however, by turning this lack of inner criteria as a mere obstacle in her firm set of beliefs, they did something much more incredible: Not let pocahontas be defined by her passivity in the 1st Movie, but rather, her conviction, which was something briefly seen in the 1st and 3rd acts of said movie. By choosing a Steadfast character arc over a traditional positive character arc, they allow for her strengths to remain at the forefront, not her weaknesses, a smart way to make us like her more and see her as the competent leader we are told she was without making her dull.

And tbh, Pocahontas makes the heavy lifting for this movie's emotional resonance if you think about it, while Ratcliffe's villainy does improve and feels more personal to Pocahontas, John Rolfe's arc: Changing from seeing Pocahontas from who he thinks she is to who she really is, is not really well executed, to the point you have to analyze throughoutly the movie to get how he changed, and John Smith stays the same (which, to the movie's defense: it is meant to be an intentional way of contrasting how Rolfe changed for her while Smith stayed with the idealized/romantic image in her head, but execution is everything so...) so Pocahontas herself is the glue that holds this sequel together, All in all, to each their own, but i'll only say that i can rewatch the 2nd one, the first one not so much.