The Tsar was a piece of ****. Uprisings and a violent killing of a royal family don't happen out of nowhere. In this case this American produced film pins the deed on a cartoon villain casting a spell rather than even touch on the severe inequalities that lead to the riot and COO. Even worse that this film portrays his daughter as alive.
shareThe Tsar was a wimpy mama's boy who did whatever people told him to do, and was raised to rule like a wimpy English pansy-boy instead of a strong, badass Russian ruler like his grandpa.
At the time this film was made, nobody had found the two additional skeletal remains outside of the mining shaft in Siberia, so we had no idea if Anastasia had actually survived or not in 1997. People went along with the myth Anna Anderson started.
It should be noted that the plotline of this cartoon was stolen from the 1956 film of the same name with Ingrid Bergman as Anastasia, and Yul Brynner playing the "Dimitri" character. Adding in the fantasy elements was entirely dreamed up by the studio that made the cartoon.
Keep in mind which movie company made this film. The Don Bluth company was founded by a former Disney animator of the same name who wanted to strike out on his own and took a bunch of animators with him when he left the Walt Disney Studios in the 80s. They were briefly in competition with Disney during the 90s, including producing cartoon films of similar quality and content to Disney, but unique in their own way. I watched many of them as a kid, including this one. Part of the reason Don Blue Productions made this was to make money as well as sticking it to Disney.
Making a movie to compete with Disney, that ends up being literally owned by Disney, that must be an interesting feeling
shareWhy I've never heard of such a thing!
shareBut he's only seen in his mother's memories of him and in a dream that Anastasia has.
I don't see how the stuff that you mention would fit into that.