Jump to content

Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated feature films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sleeping Beauty live action sequences?

[edit]

Stupid question. The opening and closing to Sleeping Beauty (with the book) certainly look like live action. Assuming they are, should note 2 be added? Or is it just too minor to add? --NE2 05:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed. I believe D23's YouTube channel might have a video on how the book was restored to its original form; I did see a podcast of it, but don't know if it's on YouTube, though. Yes, it's too minor to add. Personally, Note 2 is pointless and shouldn't even be in use. --McDoobAU93 06:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Streamline Disney Animated Feature Lists

[edit]

Link to relevant discussion on Wikipedia: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup

After perusing all the "List of" articles under the Disney category, it seems that this list is now redundant since

  • All animated films released by Walt Disney Pictures in the US are already listed under the List of Disney theatrical feature films article, also color-coded as animated films (albeit Studio Ghibli films are not listed, they are already listed here)
  • Disney's big two animation studios, WDAS and Pixar, already have lists of their own films (List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films recently created and growing and List of Pixar films
  • And it seems people are still confused that this article should redirect to the list of WDAS films article, which wasn't and isn't that main point of having a broader Disney animated film list

My suggestion is to either

Plus any information not included in those studio-specific lists that's in this list would be transfered there.

--Rebel shadow 03:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

All the Disney articles are a mess, and I can't see an easy solution! I'd be more inclined to leave this article here as an overview, and change the focus of List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films to those that were actually produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (i.e. post 2006) and include their short films, expanding the information and development there. Oh, and you may want to incorporate List of sources for Disney theatrical animated features somewhere too! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, sir; now I'm thinking of using the Template episode list template and having seasons be the different studios and then have this be a summary page, so info can be changed just once from each studio's respective list page, for better streamlining; sounds pretty ambitious, but I think it'll look MUCH better. - Rebel shadow 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Would like to see the release dates of DVD and Blu-ray added to the list so it is easy to tell which of the cannon films are available on home media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.55.85 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is, which release date do we show? Which region's release dates are used? In my opinion, the individual film articles are better at discussing when their particular releases arrived on home video in the various regions. By the by, I moved your comment to a separate part of the subhead as it appeared within another's comment, and I wanted to leave their comment intact. --McDoobAU93 23:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: This article should sort films in a single list by date like in the List of Walt Disney Pictures films page, but with a column color-coded by studio, instead of separate lists of films which branch towards each studios' individual list pages, which is redundant. Details and technicalities for release dates and type of animation should only be noted in the individual studios' film lists and not on this list. List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films already has these details brought in from this page and more appropriately belongs there than here. Lead-in details would be concisely combined into the lead paragraphs and explain why many different studios are not releasing their films with WDS and not exclusively WDAS and Pixar. - Rebel shadow 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify what you mean, there should be a single film list where WDAS films are color-coded red and Pixar green, or something similar to that. Georgia guy (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup; thinking red-orange to match the WDAS logo and light blue to match Pixar. But different from just a pure animation fork of the List of Walt Disney Pictures films page, this would also include Studio Ghibli and other releases by WDS. - Rebel shadow 19:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to this proposal? If not, I'll go ahead and reconfigure this page. And don't worry if it doesn't look complete after a couple edits.. Rebel shadow 19:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems promising. I'm in favor of it. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Key objectives to this new format
  • There shouldn't be any distinctions or notes about whether a film "has live action sequences" or is "cgi" or "traditionally animated"; this article is for films that are uniquely known/well known to be animated films and are associated with an animation studio.
  • Do not add ratings, reception data, or "sources" for films listed; those can be found elsewhere on each individual films' articles
  • Sources are needed around dates; Release dates or either original wide release date in the U.S. or in the territory where the film was released/distributed by The Walt Disney Studios. If the film was a limited release only, then that date should be noted. Citations for release dates for future films should be noted, otherwise each individual films' pages should have citations and additional special release dates listed.
Rebel shadow 22:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Issues with new format Hi everyone - I really liked being able to easily see the list of the animated classics in the past. Would there be objections to having this as a separate article? Ie the (currently 52) films that make up the animated classics collection. I agree that this new joint list is good for seeing all disneys but it would be nice to have those separated out and including a collum in a table for them with their official number - Thoughts lordmwa (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lordmwa, the "films that make up the animated classics collection" are already listed in the separate article List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. The flagship studio, WDAS, seems right now to be the only studio that markets films by number--maybe to a certain extent Pixar does as well--, but numbers for the other sublists included in the previous version of the article were redundant in that those studios did not market their films as officially numbered since only one or a couple films produced by non-Disney-owned studios are if ever released through Walt Disney Pictures. --Rebel shadow 02:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks a lot, Keep up the good work :) lordmwa (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted

[edit]

Should Enchanted be on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4701:C4A0:9CBB:27F4:152F:E075 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List comparison

[edit]

This article is a group of lists; I want to know if there are any thoughts on whether the word "List" at the beginning of the title should be "Lists". Georgia guy (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Animation off for 4 years

[edit]

What happened to Hand Drawn Animation at Disney? Didn't John Lasseter like it anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.232.88 (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably need to ask Mr. Lasseter about that. Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss that. The talk page is intended to be used by editors who are working to improve the article, not to discuss the article subject. --McDoobAU93 15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the article shouldn't discriminate or make note about whether a film was "traditionally animated" or was a mix of or has live-action scenes. The detailed lists from each respective studio should include those technicalities and details. This list should only provide an overview. -- Rebel shadow 20:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Zootopia, Giants, Moanna

[edit]

What's the difference among these 3 films that makes it so that the external link recently added is a reliable source for Zootopia and Giants but not Moanna?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original source (which was deleted, but its cached version can be accessed here) was not certain about the "Moana"'s release date.--Carniolus (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh!

[edit]

http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/our-films changed its official list. It omits The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh and The Rescuers, but includes Paperman. Georgia guy (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait it out before making any drastic edits; looks like they just launched this updated portion of their site. Otherwise any discussion on inclusion/edits to the official WDAS list should be made here. -- Rebel shadow 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Update. The site corrected its list to include the 2 films mentioned above. However, it also still includes Paperman. Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings for movies

[edit]

If the other animation companies (DreamWorks, Blue Sky e.g.) have their rating on the list, then why can't Disney? --Adam the silly (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that just because a similar page is organized one way doesn't mean that all pages like it must be organized the same way. Why should we include critical ratings that are primarily US-centric? Shouldn't that be left to the individual articles? --McDoobAU93 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what you mean the ratings are US-centric? Don't the ratings apply to all the people in the world. What is different in each world is box office performance, and that isn't what was being added. --Adam the silly (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ratings used in Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are almost entirely based in the United States. That's what I mean by US-centric. --McDoobAU93 19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never agreed that it should be added on this page if your aim is to add ratings for individual animation companies. For these films specifically in the WDAS "canon" it's more appropriate to add under a 'Critical Response' section in the List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films page or in a self-contained table there (separate from the main list table), and don't add ratings here since this page is for overall Disney-branded films. This page needs some major reworking as it is. -- Rebel shadow 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No numbers

[edit]

I remember the good old list that had the Disney classic films 1-54 with numbers. Any way to bring the numbers back?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find that at List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. - Rebel shadow 00:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New List Format

[edit]

I have frequently used this wiki page as a quick reference for Disney animated features. I think the new condensed format leaves out much information and is not as intuitive to use. I preferred the old format from a user perspective. Although I am not one to edit wiki pages myself, could there possibly be a discussion about this from editors and users before anyone decides to revamp the page? -99.6.108.182 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us know which information you think was left out, 99.6.108.182, and we can add it to this list. The former format was more so a bunch of lists that mainly taken from other studio's films articles. If you are looking for separate lists of films see List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films or List of Pixar films, or separate film lists should be within this list. - Rebel shadow 17:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The multiple lists is the feature I really liked about the page. It was nice having them all in one spot rather than having them scattered. I understand the streamlined list is essentially the same thing, but perhaps descriptions of each colour-coded category? The old format had brief descriptions of what made each studio different. Again, I realise you are trying to alleviate repetition from other pages, but that was the reason I would frequently refer to this page as a reference. It had all the information I might need to know in one place. For instance maybe another column may be added for films in the supposed 'canon'. I don't like the term myself, but there ARE films that Disney designates with a number.

I have a problem with that. For the upcoming films, the films are set up to follow this rule:
Whenever there are 2 upcoming animated movies that whether they are the same film is questionable, Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that they are not the same. Thus, it would suggest that there are 62 films, not 58, in the canon. Georgia guy (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number doesn't need to be included until the film has been released. Rebel Shadow has created a separate list for films that have not yet been released. Disney gives their official number only after the film has been released or soon before. While I don't necessarily agree with their number system (Dinosaur), it is helpful to know what film is being referred to in media when they are only referred to by their number.99.6.108.182 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Dinosaur", we just have to accept it that Disney officially includes Dinosaur in its sequence, like it or not. Georgia guy (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That's not my issue. I would just like the designated numbers to appear on this list as well. Having all the information on a single page was extremely useful to me as a user and now I have to visit multiple pages to find the information I am looking for. 99.6.108.182 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this list is not to be a "list of lists", and designated numbers are only relevant for WDAS films because they only regularly market their films as nth releases (the only exception would be Pixar). In addition, releases by Non-Disney-owned studios as numbered and listed by the previous version of the page was just a conglomarated list of films from different studios; their relation to each other was ambiguous at best. However, Studio Ghibli films seemed to be important enough to be listed separately. - Rebel shadow 02:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest if you are seeking to use this list as films separated and sorted by studio, clicking on the triangle in the column header of the Animated Studio column will sort films separated by studio, albeit films are not numbered. - Rebel shadow 02:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


Hand-Drawn Animation vs. Computer-Animation

[edit]

If computer-animation will be loses, hand-drawn animation wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.140.59 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution companies

[edit]

Before I edited this list, it stated that all of Disney's animated films had been originally distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, a film label that did not exist until 1984. All pre-1953 Disney animated feature films were originally released by RKO Radio Pictures, as Disney did not have its own distribution company. The one exception is Fantasia, which Disney originally road-showed on its own. The live-action Victory Through Air Power was released by United Artists, and the True-Life Adventures were the start of Disney's own distribution company Buena Vista Distribution. Buena Vista distributed product from Walt Disney Productions (still no "Walt Disney Pictures" or "The Walt Disney Company" at the time) through 1984, when Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures were created as film labels under Buena Vista. Buena Vista changed its name to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures in 2007.

Most of this information should be found on the The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Animation Studios articles. Just wanted to make sure this was all clear before someone tried to fly into a rage and revert the page back (by the way, the organization/ordering arrows still work just fine with the separated headers breaking the eras apart).--FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colours in table

[edit]

Possibly I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any key to the colour codes in the final column of the tables? While on the subject, relying on colour coding alone isn't very accessible! - Khendon (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is still true. Was the key removed at some point, or what has happened? Clearly it is not right. 85.217.20.78 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about Cinderella II & Cinderella III: A Twist in Time?

[edit]

They are not feature films theatrically releases, they were direct-to-video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not included in the list, so not sure what the point of this thread is. --McDoobAU93 20:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

who cares whether a movie is direct-to-video or direct-to-tv or direct-to-vhs or direct-to-torrent... a movie is a movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.29.172 (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the title of the article is "List of Disney theatrical animated features". --McDoobAU93 03:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea

[edit]

The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea (2000) is not on the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_II:_Return_to_the_Sea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.29.172 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the others, these are direct-to-video and not theatrical releases. If you can find a reliable source indicating the film got a theatrical release somewhere, then it might be included. --McDoobAU93 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about studio Ghibli Castle in the Sky?

[edit]

I noticed that there are a few films from studio Ghibli that did not make the list. For instance Castle in the sky, The cat returns, My neighbor Totoro, Whisper of the heart, Spirited Away, and The secret world of Arrietty. I am sure there are more but I can't think of them right now. Can you please look into them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.87.230 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As these films were, as you indicated, produced by Studio Ghibli, they are not Disney films. --McDoobAU93 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


However, The Studio Ghibli films listed, are films that Disney was only the Distributor for the US.. So the ones listed Should be removed since they are NOT Disney Produced films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.234.129 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 3

[edit]

I heard somewhere that they are planning on making Cars 3. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brave Little Toaster (film)

[edit]

Omnitographer Removed the entry [1] with the edit summary "The brave little toaster was neither produced nor released by Disney, though they had a financial stake in the film it is not a Disney animated feature." Hill93 is adding it back [2] without explanation either in edit history or footnotes in the article proper as to why this film is in WP:SCOPE for this article. I couldn't find anything that refutes Omnitographer assertion so have removed the entry. At the very least, if it is added, the proper footnote needs to be applied to state why it is in scope for this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'theatrical' mean?

[edit]

In Australia, we call cinemas cinemas, so 'theatrical' refers to theatres, where plays, musicals and operas are performed. Would 'cinematic' be more universal? CactusPolecat (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this list include direct-to-video releases?

[edit]

If so, where are the Aladdin sequels (eg, [Aladdin and the King of Thieves])?

If not, it should be stated explicitly, with a link to the complete list of releases. Also, the opening line should not say 'all'. CactusPolecat (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just spotted the topics above re other direct-to-video releases. So, I now get it. Still, where is the complete list of all releases? And my points regarding the meaning of 'theatre' and a clear statement regarding the scope of this article still stand.

CactusPolecat (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen 2

[edit]

Frozen 2 has been announced accoriding to the list of Walt Disney Animation Studios Films that it will be released on November 25, 2020 but on the Disney Wiki it's going to be released in 2019. 75.165.126.116 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal[reply]

Frankenweenie

[edit]

Why is Frankenweenie marked as a "Other Disney studio" film (grey) rather than "Third-party studio" (white)? I understand that Burton's earlier films "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "James and the Giant Peach" were "Other Disney studio" films as they were developed by Skellington Productions which Burton had sold to Disney by that point. However, Tim Burton Productions is a separate company and is not a subsidiary of Disney. So I think it should be classed as a "third-party studio". Kidburla (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris 2054: Renaissance

[edit]

Under "Other films by other non-Disney owned studios, released through Miramax"

The film Paris 2054: Renaissance is typo'd it says "Paris 2054: Rennaissance" but should say "Paris 2054: Renaissance". 50.43.28.161 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox

[edit]

'With Disney buying Fox what colour will we gith the new animted studios fox, blue sky, Locksmith Animation and any other I forgot? 92.232.119.244 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. To make a change via edit request, you need to explain what needs to be either added to the article or removed from it and you need to provide a reliable source. CityOfSilver 15:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
with Disney buy th;e whole of fox the studios future films above will be reslase by Disney will they be added to this page if so what coulurs will be added http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/disney-buys-fox-key-points-deal-155390.html
Your response here indicates you didn't read my message above it. Please do so. CityOfSilver 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Disney theatrical animated features. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debate between which hybrid films should be included here.

[edit]

FilmandTVFan28, if other hybrid films (live-action and animation) are allowed here, should we include Mary Poppins and its sequel? Films on this list like The Reluctant Dragon and Song of the South are mostly live-action with only a few minutes of animation, just like Mary Poppins. I think Mary Poppins and its sequel shoulx be included on the list? Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of them should be included as they are not animated features so are out-of-scope for this article. It is like the difference between a musical film and a film that has a few songs in it. For a hybrid to be considered it should be mostly animated with occasional live action sequences. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense to me. Films like Song of the South and The Reluctant Dragon, films already listed here for years, only have about 10 minutes of animation each. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, Roger Rabbit has about 12 minutes of full-fledged animation, in Toontown. Where is the cut off with some hybrids being allowed and others not? No hybrids already on the list have more animation than live action. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be listed either then. About the only one that belongs is Who Framed Roger Rabbit as animated characters are included in a significant part of the film, even in the live action portions. That is a true hybrid. The rest are too biased towards live-action to be plausibly considered an animated feature. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those films, Song of the South and Reluctant Dragon, have been here for years, it only made sense to add similar films. If we should remove them, ok. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can remove the other hybrid films. I can list them off if you want. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Reluctant Dragon, Saludos Amigos, Victory Through Air Power, Song of the South, The Three Caballeros, Melody Time Cardei012597 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possible test is if the film is described in reliable sources as a live action/animated film. Most of the listed ones are described that way in the intro to their articles. Mary Poppins (film) isn't. If the main characters are animated such as in Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Saludos Amigos that also makes it more of a real hybrid. Song of the South is more on the edge but it is described in its article as live-action/animated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Pete's Dragon (1977 film) have an animated major character? I don't know how much screen time that character has, though. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It did and the article calls it live action/animated and goes into some detail about the animation. This is just one character. At some point animation starts to overlap special effects. Gollum in Lord of the Rings films is also an animated character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the Reluctant Dragon is not a true hybrid. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Reluctant Dragon (1941 film) article says 40 of the film's 72 minutes are animated and the article intro says it is live action and animated and more than half is animated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

we should have a rule like the Highest-grossing animated films page Fanoflionking 16:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That rule, an industry rule, not a Wikipedia rule, is for award consideration as a animated feature film. That article is using it for WP:SCOPE definition. They say 75% animated means can be included in that article. That seems a reasonable rule for inclusion in this article too. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to beat a dead horse but this page is ridiculous. The title of the page is "Disney theatrical animated feature films" not "Every Disney movie with 1 second of animation". The page should be split in two, or the chart should be be split on this page. see here for an example: https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features 2600:1700:1EF0:16E1:10E6:D389:4C71:99ED (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to at least split the hybrid films from the fully animated films but it was reverted. It's ridiculous that Enchanted is considered an "animated film". Would ZX2006XZ please put back in my changes with 2 charts. Andcbii (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid films

[edit]

Enchanted, G-Force, The Jungle Book, The BFG, Christopher Robin and Dumbo are Disney's live-action/animated hybrid films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B111:1DBD:4490:D8B2:DE39:572D (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless called that in their article by reliable sources they are not. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a List of films with live action and animation. What is your point? Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

[edit]

there is a discuto on Wikipedia:Teahouse just wondering if any wants to join Fanoflionking

Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue

[edit]

Like some of the other Disney Fairie series Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue had a limited US release to try to qualify it for an academy award. But it isn't included in the list - is there a standard for this that I missed above 65.127.183.235 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=91650

CGI Lion King

[edit]

The 2019 version of The Lion King seems out of place on this list. Technically, yes, it's animated, but it's not done in any recognizably animated style. The CGI Jungle Book, which was similarly photorealistic, is not included, so why is The Lion King here? Powers T 14:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the Jungle Book remake have live-action elements, though? The Lion King remake was created using animation, so it should be included even if it doesn't obviously look animated. Trivialist (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of movies on this list that include live-action elements; there's even a footnote identifying them. Only Jungle Book is missing, and I assume that's because it was photorealistic and not "animated" in style. Powers T 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it, so I don't know how much live-action material it has. But if it's mostly animated, then it should be added too, photorealistic or not. Trivialist (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to resurrect a dead discussion, but I think the scope of this list needs to be better defined. I can't see any reason for The Lion King (2019) to be here if The Jungle Book (2016) is not here. Powers T 02:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much live-action is allowable for it to still be an "animated" film? The Jungle Book combines live-action and CGI, whereas The Lion King is (I believe) all animated. Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, there are lots of films on this list that include far more live-action elements than The Jungle Book does, so that alone cannot be the reason for its exclusion. Powers T 22:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Dates

[edit]

Under the "Highest grossing films" section 2010 and 2019 are referencing the incorrect Toy Story movies. It currently states Toy Story 4 happened in 2010 and Toy Story 3 happened in 2019 which is not correct.198.39.4.79 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Disney features canon

[edit]

Excuse me. (For the purpose of this edit, please ignore the dis-ambiguation header at the top of this article; it's not the subject of this discussion.)

One thing I can do is sort the table by studio. This makes it so that the movies are segregated, and one section is the Disney animated features canon. However, this is only nearly true:

(1) Academy Award Review is included as if it were the first movie in the canon. (This would make Snow White the second, and Fantasia 2000 the 39th.) Does it look obvious at all that it's not part of the canon despite the way it is treated by this list??

(2) Dinosaur is put at the bottom to indicate that it was made by The Secret Lab. Does it look obvious at all that this doesn't mean it's not part of the canon (back in the days barely after the Disney Animation web site launched, there was a lot of discussion and by late 2010 it was agreed that Dinosaur is the canon's 39th film)??

(Please remember that the subject of this discussion is how we can segregate the films on this list by using the Sort option, which has the option of sorting the films on this list by studio, and doing so segregates the films so that one group is the Disney animated features canon.) Georgia guy (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this suggestion as the Disney Animation canon, once located here, has since been moved to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. It's not just a matter of disambiguation; that canon was once one of the purposes of this list, but no longer is. --RBBrittain (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's no longer a purpose of this list, then what still is a purpose of this list (with no other Wikipedia article competing this one)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It's time to close this, and there's not much appetite for the proposed move, since it would also require shuffling of contents. No such user (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


List of Disney theatrical animated feature films → List of Disney theatrical and Disney+ animated feature films – This title is a remnant from before Disney Plus was created, where "theatrical" was understood to be defined as contrasting with being direct-to-video, not with the not-yet-existent-at-that-time Disney Plus. Georgia guy (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No opinion on the move, but if it does go through "Disney+" should be used for consistency, not "Disney Plus".162.208.168.92 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The suggested scope would cover films also covered by List of Disney+ original films. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like primarily a question of whether to enlarge the scope of this article, rather than one of naming per se. It seems like the argument is that the intention behind the article is to list all Disney animated films except those which are direct-to-video. I'm not really sold on that. Why not, in the intro of this article, just mention how the distribution model has changed in response to streaming, and link to List of Disney+ original films? In the absence of a compelling special circumstance, I think it's better to avoid "List of X's and Y's" style list articles (in favour of seperate articles for List of X's, and List of Y's). Colin M (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That can apply to this list where X is Disney films that are theatrical or on streaming and Y is direct-to-video (which I'm sure is what this list was intended to contrast with.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I follow - no-one is suggesting to expand the article to encompass those particular values of X and Y (i.e. to include direct-to-video films). Anyways, for the record I'm going to register an oppose on this. I still think the best solution is to just incorporate some text in the intro with a link to List of Disney+ original films, rather than expanding the scope of the article in a way that overlaps with that article. Colin M (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose, I don't see the benefit of noting two kinds of Disney products in the title. BD2412 T 00:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete or Redirect

[edit]

I think this page should be deleted or re-direct users to a different page. First of all the info on this page is available on other pages. Second it's being cluttered by moves that most people would not consider animated. It's also missing films that potentially should be added due to the current low criteria (example The Lizzie McGuire Movie). For a full list of films animated an hybrid people should be directed to List of Walt Disney Pictures films. For animated films made and distributed by disney you should link to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films List of Pixar films Disney Television Animation Disneytoon Studios. These four pages cover the vast majority of what's on this page (items not on them are on the full list). Andcbii (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it through the WP:AFD process if you'd like, though this will probably be an uphill battle for you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colour coding

[edit]

Bring back the colors that explained which studio they mainly are from. Pederjo99 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disney didn't make The Brave Little Toaster.

[edit]

Why is it on the list? I looked it up. Disney rejected making the movie straight out. 70.120.59.90 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film is rejected by D23 as such so yes, it shouldn't be on this list, and should be removed every time it re appears https://d23.com/a-to-z/brave-little-toaster-the-film/DoctorHver (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walt Disney Pictures was involved in the titles and opticals, so it should particularly count as one. 86.133.213.239 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roth/Kirschenbaum Films projects that have CGI characters count.

[edit]

I just added Alice in Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Alice Through the Looking Glass to the list as a public service announcement because they count as "Disney theatrical animated feature films", but the edit of mine kept getting reverted without explanation. WHY? IS IT BECAUSE THE PERSON HASN'T WATCH EITHER OF THESE MOVIES AT ALL? 213.58.176.66 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These films were not sold as animation, but as Live-action as stupid as that sounds especially in the case of Lion King 2019, with that said I think US and western film industry needs to dive Live-action films into two groups i.e pure-live action where there is no visible CGI, VFX or special effects such as most if not all comedy and drama films which are grounded in reality not to mention biographical films. and then start using the term Live-action cartoons i.e films that are so heavily dependent on CGI, VFX and special effects from them to function properly and have no bases in any kind of reality.DoctorHver (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soul has wrong date listed

[edit]

The main table seems to indicate Soul is Disney's latest, still-upcoming film. It links to a movie that came out in 2020. Probably just need a new source to fix the date. 2601:1C0:8380:15FA:AD6C:88A5:A479:D131 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Soul was released on Disney+ in the US, and wasn't released in American theatres until January 12, 2024, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 86.133.213.239 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the case for two other Pixar films, Turning Red and Luca, which were also released direct to streaming because of COVID but were originally planned for theatrical release. Perhaps it's worth an explanatory note that those films were initially released direct to streaming but are listed the way they are due to the date of their theatrical release in the US? - Purplewowies (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that in the {{Disney theatrical animated features}} navbox, the films are displayed with and are ordered by their original release dates instead.
Moreover, this article opens by saying that it "consists of animated films produced or released by The Walt Disney Studios", and the table in question has the headings List of Disney theatrical animated feature films § Films §§ US releases / US produced §§§ Released, so it being "about the theatrical release date" in and of itself (quoting from the reply to the edit request below) may be overstating things, and initially presenting the table so that Elemental (2023 film) comes before Soul (2020 film) and Luca (2021 film) seems counterintuitive and borderline WP:CRUFT-y to me.
If there's consensus that the table should have an "original U.S. theatrical release date" and no other date column, that's fine - but the initial ordering could still be the common-sensical one, and for those users who really do want to have the films in their literal theatrical order, all it takes is one click on that column header.
- 2A02:560:5811:5600:9F6:BD9B:4846:6530 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

[edit]

Soul and Turning Red are not published under the right years that the movies were released in inside of the table (for Soul, change 2024 to 2020, and for Turning Red, change 2024 to 2022). 74.15.214.79 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: You are correct that those films were already released earlier than stated in the article. However, this list is about the theatrical release date, and the earlier dates you're referring to are releases on Disney+. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

[edit]

The first and second link in the hatnote look to me like the overlinking that WP:HATEXTRA warns against. Users who end up here are looking for an article about films, not about filmmaking entities. Non-dab links like those belong, and already are, in the lede instead.

- 2A02:560:5811:5600:9F6:BD9B:4846:6530 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fluppy Dogs

[edit]

Hello! I added "Fluppy Dogs" to the list of Disney Theatrical Animated Films, but it keeps being removed. I tried to check the standards for what would qualify to be on this page. (A clearer explanation on the page itself would be helpful both for the audience and for anyone trying to contribute).

- "This list of theatrical animated feature films consists of animated films produced or released by The Walt Disney Studios, the film division of The Walt Disney Company." Fluppy Dogs was produced by 'Walt Disney Television Animation', which is on the list.

- I understand that the 'Fluppy Dogs' film was developed as a pilot to a television series, but the series was never made.

- It is feature-length, going by the standards set on wikipedia's pages on "Feature Films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film and "Lists of animated films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_animated_films (it's 45 minutes long).

I left a similar comment on the Talk page of the first user who deleted my entry, asking to discuss why it would or wouldn't be included, but they deleted my comment without reply. I hope that mentioning this here is a more appropriate place, and that I might get some sort of response! (Long-time wikipedia user, very occasional contributor, still learning!) :)

Thanks, Jellybeangrrl Jellybeangrrl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_feature_films&oldid=1226581629"