Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated feature films/Archive 2

Academy Award Definition of a Feature is being longer than 40 minutes

So an animated feature is an animated film at least 41 minutes in length. The rules for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature say that only features at least 70 minutes long can compete here. However, an animated film 60 minutes in length is still a feature, as it is not classified as a short film. I will remove the superscript 5 above each film for this reason. All of the Disney animated features are classified as features by AMPAS, it's just that some of them are not long enough features to compete in Best Animated Feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.145.220 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Saludos Amigos is the only one that don't make the 40 minute mark but I have heard its an expecation to the rule as strange as it sound. DoctorHver (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was 'The Wild' removed?

'The Wild' was funded and distributed by Disney. Disney provided creative support and owns the copyright. Why is it no longer listed in this article? I can understand movies that were merely distributed by Disney, like 'Tom & Jerry: The Movie', 'Vanguard' or 'Spirited Away' not being listed here, but 'The Wild' does not fit into that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.76.131 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disney may have provided some minor financial support, but it was not created at all by Disney, but by another studio. That itself shows it is not a Disney movie. 74.225.104.241 (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be ths case, but The Wild is listed as the disneys 45th Animated classic, and as such it should be added to the list. Also it throws of everything else as the actual number compared to those in the list then differ by 1 (Chicken little should be number 46). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.9 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you bringing up an item from almost two years ago. Please see the bottom of this page for a link to a current discussion where you can raise your point. As it stands now, The Wild was not produced by Disney, just released. Therefore it would not be included on the primary listing. See also the link to the official Disney Animation site, that does not include The Wild either. SpikeJones (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was bringing the point up because I have only just noticed it. As for a current discussion could you please direct me to it more spcifically I can't find it. Unless its just that the subject has not been brought up in a year. I wish to discuss this further because I believe your logic is flawed in that you assume because dinosaur appears on an internet list somewhere else it must be a classic. The disney studios list says nothing about them being classics, from what I can tell it is merly a list of films produced by them. The classiscs are films that actually state that they are classics such as the wild, disneys 45th animated classic, chicken little, disneys 46th animated classic. Dinosaur however does not say this, it is merly titles as "Pictures Presents". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.9 (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion that is currently taking place is listed in the current final item on this page, related to disney film cleanup: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup. Any points you raise regarding the term "classics" is best suited for that discussion. I also strongly urge you to register for a WP username and to use that whenever you post. SpikeJones (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The confusion probably stems from Disney in some countries, like norway (see http://www.disney.no/disneydvds/disneycastle/ ) lists The WIld as 46th classic, but does not have Dinosaur in it. 88.90.215.141 (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The US list is correct, if anyone want to ask since the studio is Based in US not Europe, and Europan entitles and licncer are not often in harmony what the US based studio thinks or how its operate.DoctorHver (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

New Reason to move Dinosaur to the first list?

I just wondered what people thought about this list on Walt Disney Animation Studios new website (http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html). They consider Dinosaur to be part of the same canon as Snow White etc... Fitting in nicely between Fantasia 2000 and The Emperor's New Groove. So might this be reason enough to reconsider the lists? Personally I see no harm in re-evaluating the lists here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWatsi (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this change should occur, since on the new official website it includes the film, Dinosaur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.86.195 (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

however it does say that Emperors New Groove was released in 2001, when it was released in 2000. So I dont know much we can trust that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixaranimator (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone added Dinosaur...

Dinosaur is not part of the canon. It threw off the whole list. Can someone remove it? 216.180.216.207 (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Neal

Please read the section above. I did try to start a conversation about this before someone changed it, but someone got to it pretty quickly. The new official website for Disney Animation Studios counts Dinosaur as part of their canon. So now I think it should be reassessed. SWatsi (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did see you posted that AFTER I made my post. Heh. Well, I agree with you. That list is 100% the canon we all knew with the addition of Dinosaur so that means Disney decided to add it. They once said the canon was dead and all future animated movies stood on their own, but it's obvious if they added it to the list they must still follow some sort of defined outline of Disney Animated films. Dinosaur should remain on that list. I hadn't seen the website or your post before I made mine. Sorry! 216.180.216.207 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Neal

Ta. Well I still think there might be some against this, I don't know if it offsets any numbering of the films, so I was hesitant to change it straight away. I don't blame anyone for questioning this, because this is the first thing I looked at when I saw the list on their website...

SWatsi (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone removed it again. I have a feeling this will be a long-running battle. People who devoutly follow the old canon before Disney stopped 'numbering' films will argue that Dinosaur should not be there and the Disney Animation site means nothing. It doesn't make it canon, it just means WDFA produced it. People who like Dinosaur, believe in the more the merrier or think that the new site should be followed will want it on the canon. Others who don't care will argue it should not be there because that will only segue people wanting 'The Wild' added, etc. I believe it should be added. 216.180.216.207 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Neal

Note: I went to the web site of Disney animation studios and wanted to find a way to contact them by e-mail and ask why they consider Dinosaur part of the canon, but unfortunately I found no way to do so. Georgia guy (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they still do consider a part of the canon whether we know why or not so it needs to stay on the list. 216.180.216.207 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Neal

Disney has Dinosaur listed on their animation site as canon. Citation provided on page should quell naysayers. SpikeJones (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this. This is not right. I have emailed Dave Smith, founder of the Disney archives. I am on a good talking basis with him, and I have asked him to clear up this matter. It will be resolved in the next couple days, and I will let y'all know. Thanks. SofaKing381222 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.102.68 (talk)

As a reminder, unless it is something that is available in a citable format, any communication you receive could be considered WP:OR and not acceptable for overturning existing cited information. SpikeJones (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

---

For those who care, the topic has sprung up yet again, over on Template:Disney_theatrical_animated_features. SpikeJones (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, Dinosaur is not an animation canon. This is a big lie! I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. This is the corecct order:

38 Fantasia 2000(2000) 39 The Emporer's New Groove(2000) 40 Atlantis: The Lost Empire(2001) 41 Lilo & Stitch(2002) 42 Treasure Planet(2002) 43 Brother Bear(2003) 44 Home On the Range(2004) 45 Chicken Little(2005) 46 Meet the Robinsons(2007) 47 Bolt 48 The Princess & the Frog 49 Rapunzel 50 Untitled Winnie The Pooh 51 The King of Elves

Dinosaurs belongs on others, I fixed it and you guys leave it alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TsWade2 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Canon"

Looking at the wikilinked page here for "canon" (film canon), the definition stated is Film canon is the limited group of movies that serve as the measuring stick for the highest quality in the genre of film.. "canon", by itself, is for a body of works considered genuine or official within a fictional universe, such as the "Star Wars universe". I think we can all agree that there is no singular Disney film "universe" that the "canon" term would apply to, so we are left with the "film canon" usage. We could go in 2 different angles with this: (a) that the Disney Animated Canon was a specific historical set of identified films that are a subset of all films worked on by WDFA/WDAS, with no additional films being added to the list; or (b) that the Disney Animated Canon is simply a complete list of all films worked on by WDFA/WDAS. As stated earlier, Disney's stance is that there no longer is a "Disney Film Canon" as it appears they are going by the "b" definition shown here. Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree Canon for random titles of movies are bit bold statement here. DoctorHver (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Studio Ghibli

Can we put the Disney release dates against the those films as well? They were all released by others before their first Disney release so it's not quite accurate and consistant with other films on this page. SWatsi (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The header of that table is currently incorrect anyway. For purposes of this page (in the English WP), the date should be release date in english-speaking countries. Would doing that fix your question? SpikeJones (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the date's should be the first Disney theatrical release? That would make more sense for the purpose of the article. Or the very first English-language release? But yes it doesn't make sense to me to list a non-Disney release date on a specific Disney page. For example the UK release date for Valiant isn't listed because it wasn't released by Disney in the UK. Even though that was the first release. I imagine the same for Pokemon too.
Thinking about it. Not sure but not all of those were released theatrically - at least by Disney - but rather on DVD? I've looked on the pages for Nausicaa and Totoro and they suggest only Disney DVD. Obviously at somepoint they started to be released to the cinemas. Can anyone confirm\correct on this? SWatsi (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The dates should be the first theatrical release date by Disney, as this is a "disney" page. Ideally, release dates in english-speaking countries. More ideally, the dates listed here MUST match the same dates listed on each linked film's page. For example, Pom Poko's page does not list a release date at all, most likely because it was not released theatrically in an english-language country (a requirement for release dates in English WP, per film MOS). Digging deeper, the film was released by Disney on DVD in english countries only. However, it was released theatrically by Disney in France... which would not qualify as an english-language release. It would on FR.WIKIPEDIA.ORG, however. Me thinks this entire page needs to be reviewed and revamped. (it should be noted that on the Disney Theatrical Releases page, there are entries/footnotes for films that were released theatrically overseas... so those may need to come off that list specifically to meet the same criteria put out here. SpikeJones (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all entries that haven't had a theatrical release by Disney, or where the release date can't be traced back. Can anyone confirm if Laputa had a theatrical release AFTER the deal with Disney (not the first US release without Disney). I think this is right. SWatsi (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't Ghibli movies before Howl's Moving Castle included?

The_Story_of_Robin_Hood_and_His_Merrie_Men

Shouldn't this film also be included? Ddcc 02:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tinker Bell

Re: this edit, I'm not sure Tinker Bell should be in the list. It was only released to theaters in four limited countries; it was primarily a direct-to-DVD feature. Powers ^T 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tink was a DtV production, and was shown at the El Capitan as pre-DVD marketing. Not released to theaters, and not tracked by any box-office consolidated reporting. In other words, did not generate any theatrical ticket sales. This would be similar to someone renting out a theater and showing the DVD on the big screen ie still a DVD. SpikeJones (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

IMDb indicates it was released to theaters in four countries, so it must have generated some theatrical ticket sales. =) Powers ^T 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Tinker Bell was released (albeit very limited) in the United States. True, it was only at El Capitan Theatre ; however, it was released for over two weeks. To state "only" as a DVD promition is not accurate. It was also released in other continries in the theaters. It counts just as much as Bambi II or Brave Little Toaster. If these are included, this movie should also be included. 20:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvsett (talk • contribs)

Box Office Mojo doesn't show ticket sales for Tink, nor does IMDB. IMDB specifically says it was a DVD release. IMDB shows box office info for Bambi2 (albeit in non-english-speaking countries, which brings up the question of including non-english theatrical releases in English wikipedia, a question that has arisen earlier on this very topic). While you may feel very strongly in your own personal convictions over whether a particular film should be on these lists, you are now treading on topics that have already been covered and previously settled through consensus and liable to be reverted much more quickly than some of the other organizational edits you have made. SpikeJones (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not revert to personal attacks. If we are going to use Box Office Mojo / IMDB as examples, neither shows any box office information regarding Brave Little Toaster; please see here and here. It is clear that Tinker Bell was release in at least one theater in the United States. Why would it be relevant if it was a promotional event, which I have not seen a source for that statement. Indeed, the fact that ran for two weeks (and not just a single night / day) and charged full price admission of $9 (per contempary newsgroup as shown here), that seems to conteract the promotional event arguement. In any event, IMBD also shows that it was released in theaters in in at least four country. You state there is a counsensus, this does not appear to be a the case; , my quick review of the discussions on this page, and the discussion pages on Template talk:Disney theatrical animated features or Talk:Tinker Bell (film) do not show a discussion on this matter. If I have missed it, please point to same. In short, by the heading of this page, which states that this page is "a list of theatrical animated feature films produced and/or released by Walt Disney Productions/The Walt Disney Company" (whith qulifications regarding United States / domestic / or "promotional") Tinker Bell qualifies for inclusion on both this list and the templete.Jvsett (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What personal attacks? Anyway, I never mentioned BLT, nor have I adjusted that particular edit. There are any number of TV or DtV programs that had pay-per-views at theaters; they still don't qualify as theatrical releases. If you would like examples, I'm sure I (or others) can dig them up for you given enough time. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I know we can agree on one thing - that the following WP pages MUST all match and present the exact same info: Category:Disney animated features canon, List of Disney theatrical animated features, Walt Disney Animated Classics (which should be renamed to "List of", considering how dramatically the page has changed from what it was before), List of Disney feature films‎ and one or two others whose names escape me currently. Also, my recommendation is that the WDAC page be merged into the primary List of DAF page since one is a subset of the other and doesn't present any information that isn't already on the main page. SpikeJones (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The releases in another country are irrelevant for this list, as "theatrical release" in this context is purely for the home country. For the limited releases here, let's note first that forum postings are not a reliable source. For Tinker Bell specifically, the seemingly simple question/answer is, what does Disney itself call it? If Disney hasn't declared one way or the other, I'm inclined to say leave Tinker Bell out and fix the lead to note that this is for films with a general theatrical release, not a limited one. Otherwise, it should be allowed in, with a footnote noting that it was a very limited release.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

According the Disney A to Z supplement, the film "had an initial release in theaters in Argentina on September 11, 2008, and an exclusive theatrical release at the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood for two weeks beginning September 19, 2008." See page 47 here. Furthermore, at Page 67 its included in the Feature Films as the 593rd film released by Disney (or one if its subsidiaries). Based on this description, Tinker Bell should be included on this list and the template, et al. Jvsett (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Regarding your statement "it was released in Argentina", keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia. The posting of film release dates, per FILM:MOS, are restricted to only English-speaking countries. This would eliminate listing Tink's Argentinian release on this page or elsewhere in en.wikipedia.org. SpikeJones (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the 2006 edition of Disney A to Z so I can't tell -- does Dave Smith's official feature film list include the direct-to-video features? Powers ^T 13:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the Supplement (at page 85), it is not inlcuded in the list of direct-to-video features. Jvsett (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty strong evidence. Dave Smith should be considered an extremely reliable source on this topic. I admit I don't quite understand the reasoning, but for consistency perhaps Tinker Bell should be on the list. Powers ^T 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Direct-to-video" it's not an opinion, it's not subject of interpretations, it has a clear meaning. Dave Smith is wrong again (or maybe he has some reason to not include Tinker Bell under the DTV section that he did not explain anywhere yet). --Elikrotupos (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing \ Citing Upcoming Films?

Should all upcoming\indevelopment films be provided with references? Asking because I've noticed King of the Elves removed a couple of times mentioning no references. I'm adding a reference to prove it from List of Walt Disney Pictures feature films, which references WDAS and Pixar films through to 2012. Don't know if this is necessary so please add or remove the ref as required. Ta. SWatsi (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course we need references. How else can anyone verify the information we place in this article? Powers ^T 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just saying, its not had references for a long time, if at all, that's all. At the time I was wondering why King of the Elves which has existed on these lists for some time was removed, whereas other films in a similar position had been left on??

Nether-the-less I have added that reference, and was actually hoping to prompt others to do so for other films. A yes would've sufficed as well :) SWatsi (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the main reason I didn't remove the other movies is because their articles all have extensive references. It's technically not enough, but it would be ridiculous for me to do so. The King of the Elves article had no reliable sources at the time. Powers ^T 14:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

KotE is announced in an official press release, linked from both the official websites of Disney and Philip K. Dick. The film is in early pre-production, but it's not a rumor. --Elikrotupos (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

untitled pooh project

Bringing this reference over from The Tigger Movie in case it is related..SpikeJones (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not the same film. As much as I was hoping for "The Tigger Movie 2" - it turned out the Kenny Loggins project was "My Friends Tigger, Pooh and a Musical Too" - the CGI animated finale to the TV Show "My Friends Tigger & Pooh". Not anywhere near an animated classic, just a TV show capper. This film, however, will be animated in the U.S., overseen by John Lasseter, and be traditionally animated. That's why it would appear that it should be in the canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.216.207 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's canon!

New Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh Initiatives

Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh remain among the company’s key character franchises; for a broad cross-section of consumers, these two classic characters boast a deep emotional connection and an unrivaled affinity like no other. In support of this, DCP has developed comprehensive plans to propel the growth of these classic character properties and keep them “top of mind” across demographics.

Beginning with Winnie the Pooh, DCP and Walt Disney Animation Studios today announced a new theatrical film planned for spring 2011, making it Pooh’s first theatrical release in six years since Pooh’s Heffalump Movie in 2005. DCP will focus merchandise strategy on moms of infants and toddlers, with a secondary focus on women. Other Disney businesses, including Disney Publishing, are developing Pooh content for a new generation of consumers that will further drive the growth potential of this classic character.

Said by Disney themselves:

https://licensing.disney.com/Home/display.jsp?contentId=dcp_home_pressroom_pressreleases_dcp_home_pr_us_licensing_show_general_060109&forPrint=false&language=en&preview=false&imageShow=0&pressRoom=US&translationOf=null&region=0&ccPK=dcp_home_pressroom_press_room_all_US&first=0&last=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.216.207 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not canon (a word that isn't used anymore, anyway). Even if you want to take the press release at face value, there is no indication that the Pooh film will be produced by WDAS... especially as it uses the Heffalump film in the same paragraph. As for the Kenny Loggins project, do you have a citation that shows that is what he was working on when he specifically said "film"?SpikeJones (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Many Disney forum-users and hobbyists still use that word. I believe a recent Disney press release for a DVD re-release of one of their classics used the word, as well.

How can the wording be anymore clear?:

"Beginning with Winnie the Pooh, DCP and Walt Disney Animation Studios today announced a new theatrical film planned for spring 2011, making it Pooh's first theatrical release in six years since Pooh's Heffalump Movie in 2005."

They say Walt Disney Animation Studios is making THIS film. Yes, they bring up Pooh's Heffalump Movie but don't say WDAS made that one. They just say WDAS is making THIS one. That is clear as day.

And clearly they know the difference between the Heffalump studio and WDAS because later when discussing the TinkerBell films they call the studio Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. So they do differentiate between the two studios. Not a mistake on their part.

Finally, it is obvious Loggins was referring to My Friends Tigger, Pooh and a Musical Too. He says he's working on a 'new Tigger movie' - well, this certainly qualifies. Tigger plays prominently and his name is a headliner. This was the next (and besides this new 2011 Pooh project, only) Pooh film to release. The DVD had a montage of Loggins performing the song "Underneath the Same Sky" to scenes from the movie. That would seem to fit. Plus, if a new theatrical Pooh film is coming, than there won't be a new DTV anytime soon. Just like because "The Princess and the Frog" is coming, they stopped 'Disney Princess Enchanted Tales' - any new Pooh DTV will be stopped to avoid weakening the impact of the theatrical film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.216.207 (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Disney stopped using "canon" a few moons ago. Whether "fans and hobbyists" use the term is irrelevant if the company has stopped using it. If you know of a press release that states "canon", please provide a link (a recent google search of go.com did not return *any* results when this topic came up elsewhere the other day). Your statement about weakening the impact of the theatrical film with a DTV release is conjecture at this point. "The Tigger Movie" is considered a Pooh film, so you are also making a guess as to what the "untitled Pooh project" is going to be about. You are also associating the Princess/Frog movie as the reason for the Enchanted Tales videos to be stopped, which is also conjecture. Please remember that you can't publish your own opinion of events in WP or provide your own original research as to cause and effect. SpikeJones (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as to using press release info to predict future events (as you insist that WDAS is making the film and therefore qualifies as being listed in the aforementioned "canon"), remember that Disney also issued press releases about "American Dog" and "Disney's America", two projects that either never came to fruition or were dramatically changed in concept/execution from the original announcement. WP is not a crystal ball. SpikeJones (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fight with you, just so you know - if any of this seems to be getting unfriendly. My statement about DTVs weakening theatrical films isn't really conjecture. I do not care to do all the digging to find the quotes right now, but Lasseter said it in an interview (calling the previous administration 'stupid suits'), I believe it was said in "Dream On, Silly Dreamer", and multiple articles at Disney news sites like BlueSkyDisney and Jim Hill Media say the same thing. I did not originate those words, I'm echoing them. Also, I'm not 'publishing' conjecture if I'm talking to you about it personally here.

I'm just passionate about Disney animation and love to help spread news of it. I'm not trying to be an ignorant fan or troll. I love to get the word out about upcoming projects which is why I want to work at one of Disney's advertising departments. It seems to me to be clear what the DCP press release was saying - that WDAS is behind this. Perhaps I AM misinterpreting it, in which case, I am sorry. I am currently trying to contact Disney to find out. Mac McLean did not know, he can only speak for the home video premieres and did not seem to know anything about this project. Unfortunately, Nidia Tatalovich, head of corporate communications for DCP is out of her office until Sunday. I only got an auto-reply email from her. I'm doing what I can to sort this out. Do you know of any Disney contacts?

Finally, your last argument is moot. At this point, with 80% animated, The Princess and the Frog will be released. There is no guarantee that Rapunzel or King of the Elves will be. They could go through development hell and never see the light of day. So they really shouldn't be already on the canon, either, as they are only announced at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.216.207 (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

JHM and BSD are both wonderfully well-written by nice people, but 99.9% of the time do NOT qualify as valid sources for WP as they are self-published blogs that do not reveal their sources. WP is an encyclopedia, so no matter how passionate you are about the topic, you MUST have valid, factual sources to back up your edits. You cannot interpret what is said in any way. "Untitled Pooh Movie" could be a Tigger film, a Rabbit film, or a Gopher film. It might be produced by DisneyToon, might be by WDAS, could be outsourced entirely to a third-party like the hand-drawn portions of Enchanted were. But we can't say anything more about it until more information has been released. My last point is not moot, as American Dog was well into production when it got yanked and reworked. Emperor's New Groove went through massive changes from drama to comedy and a name change from its original press release to final product. Press release info does and can change. Read the new book "The Art of Walt Disney World" for dozens of examples of proposed and announced projects that never came to pass. Yes, many of us Disney-oriented editors here on WP have plenty of inside Disney contacts. But information obtained from our friendships with those people cannot be posted either, as the info must appear in an unbiased, 3rd party source - otherwise the info will be removed as being WP:OR. There's nothing wrong with enthusiasm, but WP is not a personal blog where you can post things without proper backing. And a small hint if you do end up working for a Disney advertising department: the confidentiality agreement you sign will probably prohibit you from discussing any project publically until it has been announced through proper/official channels anyway. (and if you are serious about contributing to WP, sign up for a username; you may gain a little goodwill that way) SpikeJones (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A) I do have an account, but since the cache on my computer doesn't work right, I get logged out every time I leave (the 'stay logged in for 30 days' choice doesn't work), so I'm too lazy to sign in each time I visit.

B) You must have misunderstood why your point is moot. You are allowing "Rapunzel" and "King of the Elves" to stay added, correct? Yet, you were trying to say announced projects should not be added in case currently unforeseen circumstances preclude the film from coming to fruition. If that is a qualifying factor for what should be on this list, than the list should currently end at "BOLT". Only once a film is in theaters should it be added because only then has a film truly been 'released'.

C) The articles I was referring to exist circa 2006/2007 and consist of official comments from Disney employees, not unidentified sources. That'd make them official. I simply don't care to dig through 3 years-worth of archives right now.

D) You sound like a stuck-up elitist right now. Yes, you're trying to preserve the integrity of this article, I understand, but that doesn't mean you should berate those who attempt to assist you. I am not making this a personal blog. DCP said the film was being announced in-conjunction with Walt Disney Animation Studios. They later say the fifth TinkerBell film is being made by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. That shows they know the difference between the two studios. I did not come on here and say "At UltimateDisney forum a member claiming to work for WDAS said a new Pooh film is coming in 2011! I'm adding it because I don't think he is lying!" - that is a blog post. That is speculation. What DCP said seems crystal clear to me. I fail to understand why you are so against it. I may turn out to be wrong, but why would DCP issue a press release with misinformation?

E) This whole article is in bad shape, anyways. It is missing various DisneyToon films and could use more explanation about the history of the list.

F) I know very well of American Dog and Kingdom of the Sun.

G) Finally, I am not a naive little boy. I know that working at DCP or a similar Disney-related branch would not give me the right to blather any news as I saw fit. However, in an instance such as this, I could encourage the company to better clarify the details of their press releases. I could have gotten them to say without a shadow of a doubt X studio is animating this film which means either yes, it is a Disney animated Classic or no, it is not. No, I can't just blurt anything but I can work to ensure what news is released is released in a clearer, more understandable fashion.

I'm willing to help clean up this article, if you don't act with such snobbery.

NealP (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

Thank you for the "kingdom" correction to my above typo. What you are interpreting as berating/snobbery is the requirement for all WP articles that edits adhere to WP policy. You didn't indicate that you were familiar with citation or WP:OR policies. If you don't care to sift through years of paperwork to find content to make a valid edit, then how can you also profess to want to properly improve what is currently here? If you would like to improve the article, join in the already existing conversation regarding what should or shouldn't be listed above. KotE, PatF, Rap have been documented beyond their original press releases to the point where they can confidently be included in the WDAS section. "Untitled Pooh Project" is so vague as to not even warrant this level of discussion or comparison to those other, more well documented films *at this time*. Your enthusiasm is appreciated, surely, and matches well with the enthusiasm other editors have. But as an encyclopedia, editing rules need to be adhered to, and as such, raw enthusiasm needs to be reined in. SpikeJones (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are not the Tinkerbell movies "released by" Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, because it is a Home Entertainment movie, not because they made the film. That division is for the release of DVD and Blu-Ray isn't it??

Also after Lasseter and Catmull were brought into Disney Animation, it has been mentioned that DisneyToon Studios has been brought under the Animation Studios banner itself. This is mentioned in the DisneyToon article and is referenced[[1]].

It does sound suspect, I would assume as of now it is a WDAS film, but the way it is written, and from the variety article, it may still be a DisneyToon Movie. Anyone agree that Disney's setup is getting confusing? SWatsi (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Disney corporation is not quite clear on what goes where. The sources are up to interpretation. My reading on the article, and the other sources, is the new Pooh film would be coming form DisneyToon Studios. This passage makes it sound like its connected to Pooh's Heffalump Movie: "As for Pooh, the movie's planned release for spring 2011 will come six years after "Pooh's Heffalump Movie" was largely panned by critics while earning just $18 million at the domestic boxoffice." [2] Historically, the only Pooh projects that were released by WDAS were the five shorts from 1966 through 1983, and along with the film The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. The first animated television show was made in Australia by the television department. The others produced by Walt Disney Television I believe all recent Pooh films (made in theater or Direct to Video) have come form the Disney Toon Studios [3] or Walt Disney Studios in general (see Piglet's Big Movie [4] and The Tigger Movie [5], which is made by Disney TV). The video spin-offs of My Friends Tigger & Pooh appear to be from Walt Disney Television. Finally, the Walt Disney Animation Studios' website (which can be found here) does not yet list it as a feature project for WDAS. So while it appears to verifiable that a new Pooh film is coming out from both industry source (such as the Disney Consumer Produces press release) and third party sources (The Hollywood Reporter), I would was say the preponderance of evidence is that it is DisneyToon film. So I would suggest that the film either be moved to that section or "Other animated films released by Disney" section until more sources clear the matter up. Jvsett (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Winnie the Pooh 2011 film should not be on the classics list until we have our certainty. As long as any doubt remains, it should not be included. NealP (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

Starting a re-vamp

I am going to begin working to better explain the various lists here, as well as eliminate the other list of WDAS classics and the other list of DTVs, making this the only home for them. I will not do any OR and will only write what is factual. If I neglect to include proper citations, it's not because it is OR. It is because I must have not realized a citation was necessary. Please don't delete the text but rather add the propr citation.

I want to clean this page up and make it all right.

NealP (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

Here's how I can see the updated page working:

Do not make it strictly theatrical. Thanks to DisneyToon, there are as many straight-to-video animated films as there are theatrical. So, the term 'theatrical' is too limiting.

Right now, we force users to go to other pages to find any non-theatrical Disney animation films. Let's remove the term 'theatrical' and consolidate it all here.

Disney is no longer a one trick animation pony. Once upon a time, only (what is now) WDAS made animated films under the Disney name. Now that Disney practically owns Pixar and has a similar deal with ImageMovers Digital, as well as exclusive distribution rights to Studio Ghibli, we should include WDAS as being the main animation studio, yes, but now one among several.

We list each studio (Pixar, WDAS, ImageMovers, Ghibli) and explain their relationship to Disney as a parent company (films co-produced by, merely distributed, etc.)

We include all the films then. For DisneyToon, we need to explain the types of films - compilations of TV series, or TV series-based films, etc.

We only include feature-length films. If Disney bends the rules and calls them theatrical, we must, too (like Saludos Amigos), otherwise we follow the Acadmey's 70-minute (or is it 75-minute?) rule.

We will also fix the featurettes page and shorts page in the same way and make sure they are connected at the hip to this page.

But as it stands, this page makes it sound like WDAS is it except for some other non-WDAS films. Nowadays, WDAS is really just one among many and should be treated as such by not saying "non-WDAS films" but rather treat it as "other Disney animation".

NealP (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

I would support a revamp of the lists, this is something that I (and others I think) have thought about. It's an interesting time to propose this though..

Some points on this, I'm not sure its wise to mix the theatrical and home-video releases together, this is most important for DisneyToons as you mentioned, but also Studio Ghibli (have Disney released any of their films on DVD but not at cinema? - Disney don't distribute those in the UK so I can't say, but it seems that they have from previous conversations.

You mention the Classics list. If that list is discontinued then the Pixar lists should also be considered. - i.e. is it wise to have two seperate lists of the PIXAR FILMS.

Good luck. SWatsi (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry forgot. I have some suggestions which might work to solve a few problems.. hopefully SWatsi (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no issue with limiting this to "theatrical". By extending to DTV or television productions, this page would become so large that it would be split out to the subparts anyway. And there already are pages for "list of DTV" and "list of TV" productions anyway. Be sure to look there as well as part of your cleanup. If you need help finding those links, speak up. Remember that this is the "english" wikipedia, which means that we don't talk about films released theatrically in non-english countries if they were only released on video here. (and some may object to your phrasing of "practically owning pixar", when they "fully" do. Perhaps your intent was to use a different example as you wrote that?). As I suggested earlier this week, it might be a good split to have this page be "theatrical animation distributed by Disney" with the in-page breakdown being by film producer (WDAS, Pixar, Ghibli, Other). Some may want to include films that contained partial animation by said producers (Enhachanted, Pete's Dragon) SpikeJones (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree; let's keep this just theatrical releases and leave the DTV releases for another page. Powers ^T 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I favor an 'all or none' approach. I do not like how currently we only list 11 DisneyToon films merely because they were in theaters and force users to follow a link to the remaining features. I say either don't include any of the films of DT Studio, or put them all here. We can not forget these 11 DTVs were still intended as striaght-to-video and only got theatrical releases because they were of a higher quality. They really aren't special to that line of films.

How do all of you feel about this? To me, it's bothersome seeing only a partial list of one companies films here and the rest of the list elsewhere. Since every WDAS, Pixar, and Imagemovers Digital film will be or have been released theatrically, DisneyToon feels like a strange outlier.

NealP (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

You have to treat it factually, and don't judge content based on what you feel is a slight. There is a page dedicated to DisneyToon Studios just like there is a page dedicated to Pixar. This is a page for "theatrical" releases, and if Toy Story 2 had been a DTV as originally intended, it would not be included in the Pixar section. See List of Disney direct-to-video films as well (which reminds me, we need to pull "canon" off that page too). SpikeJones (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand what the point of this page is. It really isn't a hub so much as a repeat of information on other pages. The fact is all Pixar, ImageMovers, and WDAS films are/will be theatrical. So why have a page for all their films one place, and repeat that info here? This whole article seems to be a repeat and unnecessary. There should be a page for Disney's theatrical animated classics, a page for pixar's films, a page for disney shorts, a page for disney featurettes, page for pixar shorts, page for disneytoons, page for ghibli, and finally page for imagemovers. Most of those already have separate individual pages. To echo the information on this article doesn't seem useful. Could someone explain the usefullness of having this article, plus those articls? If this served as a home or hub, maybe, but this is just another article with the same info.

NealP (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

"Waiter, have you tasted the soup? Taste the soup!" Now you get the problem. Unfortunately, deleting this page will require a strong argument of reasoning when you submit it for AfD. There will be many people who will agree with this stance, but an equal number who will oppose it, leaving you right back to the issue at hand. If you are going to go down the AfD route, then figure out what page(s) are the appropriate places for the info on this page and then move that content over. Eventually, you'll be left with a disamb page which should be adequate for point people elsewhere. SpikeJones (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Other animated films released by Disney

Does anyone notice these are all projects that tie back to Tim Burton/Henry Selick? Any way we could use that connection to re-title it. Such as "Tim Burton Animation Projects" or something along those lines? Because calling them "Other animated films released by Disney" sounds a lot like "other animated films distributed but not produced by Disney". Either the first list is re-titled or the first list combines with the second.

And Alice in Wonderland the Tim Burton version is predominantly live-action. I don't think it really has a place on this page. That'd be like adding The Secret of the Magic Gourd just because it features a CGI character throughout. NealP (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

Please see above conversation regarding a project to discuss page changes. SpikeJones (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

More Pooh

Well, the film is officially a classic and being done by WDAS. If you can trust me after all this, than feel free to add it back to the list. If not, then I won't mind. Etiher way, here is my proof - take it or leave it - I got a response from Disney and posted it at my blog:

http://alwaysanimated.blogspot.com/

NealP (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

Again, while your enthusiasm is appreciated, we can't take a posting that you have made on your blog as a valid WP:CITE. This would be similar to Joe Blow posting on their site that "the next Pooh film will be drawn as stick figures" and then referencing it as a "new stick-figure pooh film" in WP. We will have to continue to wait for an unbiased, unaffiliated source to be presented. SpikeJones (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I expected as much. While I don't quite know how Heidi Trotta, official spokeswoman for Disney, is biased - you can do as you wish. She asked me to distribute this news around, so that is what I am doing. Furthermore, I do not have time to help here any further this summer. You can revert back from any changes I've made. I won't be around to know. NealP (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)NealP

It;s not that Heidi Trotta is biased, but rather it is the blog post. Blogs are not seen as reliable because anyone can write anything claiming to be official word. As you know not everyone is truthful on the internet. If this were someone elses blog, with comments from another person it would be the same debate.

SWatsi (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And it's an original research. Anyway there's an official press release saying explicitly that the new Pooh is produced by WDAS: here, saying: "Beginning with Winnie the Pooh, DCP and Walt Disney Animation Studios today announced a new theatrical film planned for spring 2011". I think it's a reliable sources. It's a bit ambiguous, but now we know the truth, so there's no reason not to use it. --Elikrotupos (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding Disney Film List Clean-Up

For discussions regarding the over-arching clean-up of the various Disney animated film lists, please see this WikiProjects page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney/Animated Film Article Cleanup. Please add any discussion regarding same there for the time being. Thank you. Jvsett (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Romeo & Juliet

Disney is in the process of making an animated film called, Romeo and Juliet... why is this not on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkvampire1990 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. DKqwerty (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Disney is only doing some of the animation, Rocket Films is producing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixaranimator (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note 7 removed

The following line was removed from the notes under the list of films for "Walt Disney Animation Studios"

7. Received a release or re-release in the IMAX format in addition to their regular theatrical releases.

I do not know about the actual details for this entry, however a number of films in that list still reference the now non-existent note 7. Kid Bugs (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have recently reverted to an earlier version of the table, and think I have caught everything now to make the notes correct. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Disney Renaissance

Why is this part still added to the notes? I assumed that only technical details related to the production and screening was relevant here, not diffuse trivia such a the so-called Disney Renaissance. 84.210.31.205 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Some one can remove it. SWatsi (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ImageWorks

Why add, the Yellow Submarine, which comes out in 2012, and exclude the films that are coming out sooner (Airmen 2011, Mars Needs Moms 2010)?

I went into the article for Airman and found the movie info, even fleshing it out a bit, but with that one, and Mars Needs Moms, I have yet to find anything verifiable that announces when those films are to be released. The articles I've found only say that they're being worked on. If you can provide something showing when Disney/IMD will release the films, that'd help a lot. Considering that Disney's own website lists a lot of films coming out in 2010 and Mars Needs Moms isn't one of them, it's looking iffy that such a big-budget picture is planned for release in the next 12 months and doesn't even have a placeholder website (like Tron Legacy does, for example). Stranger things have happened, of course. I think the films do belong here, but until the release dates get sorted out officially, how should they be listed? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you need to have the exact date, just put in unknown. it just looks better than to skip from 2009-2012. there are many movie from ImageMovers, I dont think most of them are planned on or after 2012. We can only guess at this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixaranimator (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

well here is a link to IMDB page for disney releases and it says its coming out in 2010. http://www.imdb.com/company/co0098836/ Being a confirmed film, even if we dont have a release date, I think we should list it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixaranimator (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh and Snow Queen

It has been confirmed that they are making a new Winnie the Pooh Movie in 2011 that is made by the Disney Animation studio, and not a subsidiary like DisneyToon (Which by there rule is considered part of the official Cannon), so why not add that in the list? Snow Queen had been quasi confirmed, but only in the animators interviews. Do you think we should add if but put next to it "Unconfirmed"?

Do you have references? Rob Sinden (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what they're talking about: Exclusive: Disney’s Upcoming Hand-Drawn Movies Revealed, Including The Snow Queen SWatsi (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So Snow Queen is still in development, although maybe progressing, and just a slight mention of something to do with Winnie the Pooh? I don't think they belong on these lists just yet. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the page for winnie the pooh http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1449283/, even if we dont know when its best to add them anyway --Pixaranimator (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As they are still in development and not yet in production, I have added an "in development" section, as they do not belong on the list yet. If anyone feels that this section shouldn't be here, please feel free to remove it, but think it's better to have something mentioning them rather than to have to keep deleting them from the table. Hopefully this will stop people from continually adding. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to read WP:NFF? Posting the info, even if YOU know the films to be in production and I know it to be true, doesn't mean (dare I say) diddly-squat. No point to post a film here if it can't pass notability under the film project. Just saying. SpikeJones (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how much you all fight - because nothing at all is for certain. While "Winnie the Pooh" is only included as a side-note below the canon listing, but is actually far along in production (with finished animation) and definitely going to be released - "King of the Elves" was included on the list after only being announced, and has actually been canceled (no animation ever completed) - it has even been removed from the Walt Disney Animation Studios website! "Snow Queen" looks like a sure bet, and also, "Joe Jump" has re-entered development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.216.207 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Using the criteria you suggest (i.e., that WDAS' website doesn't mention King of the Elves, and thus it's canceled, or at least not in active development), then we should also remove any references to Winnie the Pooh, The Snow Queen and this Joe Jump you mention. Why? Because said website doesn't mention them, either. If you can provide a reliable and verifiable source that states that (a) King of the Elves has been delayed or canceled, (b) The Snow Queen is in active production, and/or (c) Joe Jump is in development, then it can be added. Until then, we stick with what has been announced and otherwise published. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying add them - I'm just pointing out, once again, the folly of this "encyclopedia" - "King of the Elves" was given a formal announcement, but never heard from again, and was added to this site. "Winnie the Pooh" was given a formal announcement but no one will allow for it to be added. Yet, in the end, Pooh will be made and Elves will not. Silly wiki, facts are for real websites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.216.207 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Pooh has been announced, but based on previous history, and a lack of announcements from Disney regarding this, the recent Pooh theatrical films (such as The Tigger Movie, Piglet's Big Movie and Pooh's Heffalump Movie) are outside the "official" list. So in terms of official count, as it's been presented by Disney, Rapunzel will be #50 and King of the Elves, barring a change, would be #51. We don't know where Pooh goes yet, so that's why someone set up the "In development" section. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the pooh movie will indeed be official canon: http://movies.ign.com/articles/102/1023325p1.html it was announced quite a long time ago by Lasseter himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prnoct90 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Disney is not developing a Pooh movie. However, only one Winnie-the-Pooh film is considered part of the official count of animated features, and that's the compilation feature The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh. The source before, as well as the source you cited above, makes no statement as to whether this new feature is to be counted alongside The Princess and the Frog, which is where you added it, or alongside The Tigger Movie. Until such time as an official announcement appears, the order needs to stay as-is. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

But, as stated in the following interview with a representative from Disney (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/07/exclusive-disneys-upcoming-hand-drawn-movies-revealed-including-the-snow-queen/), the same team that worked on the Princess and the Frog will be working on the new Pooh movie. Anyone that understands the way that the Disney Animation studio works would put two and two together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prnoct90 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In writing an encyclopedia article, we must assume the reader does not understand "the way that the Disney Animation studio works". Making such a leap on our own, without reliable sources saying the same thing, constitutes original research, something not permitted here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Disney Double Dare You

Guillermo del Toro has recently founded a new animation studio for Disney realizing more darker films. http://screenrant.com/disney-guillermo-del-toro-double-ross-25391/ http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/11/guillermo-del-toros-d-project-revealed-a-new-disney-animation-label/</ref>

do you think we should add it? there first picture is Trollhunters --Pixaranimator (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No - I don't think this should be included yet, as film appears only to be "in development" and therefore not eligible for inclusion, therefore, there is nothing to put on the list. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Snow Queen

I have a source for the release date of The Snow Queen, and added it to the list. If it's not credible by Wiki standards, can we at least keep the changes up until the official press release and simply change the reference then? Flapjack727 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The source you provided is a self-published blog, and thus does not meet the requirements for a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. In such a case, we would default to that which is reinforced by more solid sources, which would be that The Snow Queen is in development with no known release date and King of the Elves is planned to follow Rapunzel. When the official plans are announced, then we can set the order based on them. Until then, this is speculation, something that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567436/ --Pixaranimator (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

IMDB listings for future projects are not valid WP citations.SpikeJones (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

here is another source http://www.beyondhollywood.com/disney-confirms-work-on-the-snow-queen/ --Pixaranimator (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Got a look at it ... appears to be a self-published blog, which makes it tough to be considered a reliable source, although I'm open to other opinions as well. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's leave it in the "in development" section for now. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't get much more reliable. Out of the mouths of Disney themselves: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/07/exclusive-disneys-upcoming-hand-drawn-movies-revealed-including-the-snow-queen/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prnoct90 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can ... the Los Angeles Times, which is considered a more reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. This article, recently added as a source at Tangled, states that The Snow Queen has been "shelved;" maybe not canceled, but not in active development anymore, it seems. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

King of the Elves cancelled??

should this be deleted? I have heard it has been canceled. Its been removed from the website. However; it is being released in 2012, and Winnie the Pooh is being released in 2011. Maybe they removed it because they wanted to make way for Pooh? (Pixaranimator (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

People keep sourcing an article from Blue Sky Disney saying that King of the Elves has either been delayed or canceled to make way for Winnie the Pooh, The Snow Queen or both. Since Blue Sky Disney is a self-published blog, it doesn't meet the criteria for being a reliable source for such a change. Pending something more definitive, I am of the opinion that we should leave things the way they are, that King of the Elves is still on for 2012 (although we don't need to list a month and a day) and that Winnie the Pooh and The Snow Queen are in the works with uncertain release dates and marketing backing (e.g., would a Pooh release in 2011 be the 51st animated feature, or would it be like the other recent Pooh films--The Tigger Movie et al--and be outside the classics count). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

should this be deleted from the list, being it has been canceled and all. --Pixaranimator (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a verifiable, non-fansite source stating that it has been canceled? If so, you would be correct that it should be removed from the template. Until then, it should remain. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Joe Jump

anyone know anything about this? Is it going to be in the official cannon like Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel? Or unofficial like Enchanted, Nightmare Before Christmas and the Wild?--Pixaranimator (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think we have any definitive proof that this film even exists, do we? Outside of fan-blogs and such, that is. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also heard they are starting the project Don Quixote in 2015 (only because it is said to be hand drawn and we were told we will get one hand drawn film every 2 years) starting from:

• 2008- Bolt= CG
• 2009- Princess and the Frog= Hand Drawn
• 2010- Rapunzel= CG
• 2011- Winnie the Pooh= Hand Drawn
• 2012- King of the Elves= CG
• 2013- Snow Queen= Hand Drawn
• 2014- Joe Jump?= CG
• 2015- Don Quixote?= Hand Drawn

--Pixaranimator (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumors are fine and all, but Wikipedia's talk pages are not forums for discussion. If you have a verifiable and reliable source that states this, then the discussion would be how to incorporate the information into the article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaur

should Dinosaur be added in the Live-Action/Animation part sense, it was filmed in live action background, just with CG dinosaurs. Plus it was made by Disney's Secret Lab. Doesnt that mean its not official cannon?--76.115.19.95 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Previous consensus seems to be that as it's included on the official Animation Studios website here: [[6]] it should be considered to be official "canon" and therefore belonging on this list. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Marvel

do we want to add any Marvel animations sense Disney owns it now? --76.115.19.95 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have Disney produced any theatrically released Marvel animated features? Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

These films (Marvel Animation)? Well two problems for that idea:

1) This list is those movies that are released by Disney. As the Marvel animated movies were released in homes by Lionsgate they don't apply (as of now that is - future films are possible, re-releases are possible).

2) This is for theatrical releases, as far as I know none of those films were released to theaters; only to DVD so this would be more appropriate to discuss there regarding future releases. SWatsi (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-releses don't count as they were not orginally produced by Disney. If there ever comes a Marvel animated film from Walt Disney studio listed on the offical studios list then yes. other wise no. DoctorHver (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Hand Drawn Animation still going on after Winnie the Pooh?

Is hand drawn animation still going on after Winnie the Pooh? They said they're doing hand drawn animated movie in every two years. But they change the schedule. And my biggest concern is like if this is the end of hand drawn animation again. Hope it's not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.57.43 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaur isnt a classic the wild is

the dvd of the wild states on the back it is the 46th animated classic.

atlantis states on the back that it is the 40th classic THIS LIST IS WRONG and i keep changing it and it keeps getting changed back it should be

tarzan 37 fantasia 2000 38 the emperors new groove 39 atlantis 40 lilo and stitch 41 treasure planet 42 brother bear 43 home on the range 44 chicken little 45 the wild 46 meet the robinsons 47 bolt 48 the princess and the frog 49

all the above state their classic number on the back with the exception of the emperors new groove which says disney classic on the front.

i have a copy of dinosaur and nowhere on the front or the back does its say it is a classic therfore it is not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.61.196 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a list of the 'Walt Disney Classics' - this is a list of films produced at the studio. The Wild was not produced at the studio. However it should be somewhere on this page but seems it is not. 90.196.167.160 (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding...

Finally, please do *NOT* use the spine numbers of UK Disney releases in the WDAS section. Those numbers omit Dinosaur (made by a special unit of Walt Disney Feature Animation called "The Secret Lab" which folded shortly thereafter; included by official WDAS sources in the U.S.), but include The Wild (*not* produced by WDAS, or even by Disney; merely Disney-distributed). Thus, UK spine numbers 39-46 will *NOT* match this list. This list conforms to the official WDAS canon in the U.S. (where WDAS is based), *NOT* the UK

This info is easy to read a lot into. If there are 2 versions of a sequence, we need a way to make sure both versions are included. Georgia guy (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 3 versions of the truth, the list of WDAS films in Europe excluding the UK include Pete's Dragon, Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks, maybe these should be on the list along with The Wild and Dinosaur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.124.248 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The list is based around the official published list by WDAS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the HTML comment appears to imply that there are 2 official versions, one for the U.S. and one for the U.K.. If both versions are official, but one for each country, Wikipedia's article itself should mention a sentence of some kind that talks about the differences, such as:

Variant: In the U.K., "Dinosaur" is not considered part of the canon but "The Wild" is. Georgia guy (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Where's the source for the two versions? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The HTML comment itself is the source. Have you studied it?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant can you find a source that gives an alternate numbering system? If so, then we have something to discuss. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what the HTML comment does. Specifically, the HTML comment inside the article that says don't use the U.K. spine numbers. It mentions the difference between the U.S. and U.K. versions of the film numbering. Have you read it?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a source - that's a comment that someone has put to discourage people from adding The Wild. However, we have one (official) source that shows the complete list of films produced by WDAS. The Wild was not produced by WDAS, therefore doesn't belong in the list. Unless you have a conflicting source that shows that it was, then we shouldn't change the list. The spine numbering is irrelevant really, and we don't have a source for this in any case, however I would suspect that any future numbering in the UK will follow the US numbering, but obviously we can't be sure. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why it isn't a valid source. I'm not asking anyone to change the list; I'm just suggesting a sentence like the one above in this header that I posted at 14:17 12 April 2011. Georgia guy (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's go over the final sentence of the HTML comment:

This list conforms to the official WDAS canon in the U.S. (where WDAS is based), *NOT* the UK

Do you see how it mentions the 2 countries?? It appears to say that the countries have slightly different versions of the canon, different merely in that there are 2 films that belong in exactly one version, "Dinosaur" in the U.S. and "The Wild" in the U.K.. This appears to be a source that the 2 countries have different versions that are official in the respective countries, and that this list should use the U.S. version because Disney is a U.S. company. Georgia guy (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. This isn't a source. It's a comment. But largely irrelevant. Where is the source to back up the statement that Dinosaur is part of the canon in the UK? Regardless of the wording shown in the html code, which seems to be the cause of the confusion, this is a list of films produced by WDAS. In order for The Wild to be on this list it needs to have been produced by WDAS. Question: Was The Wild produced by WDAS? Answer: No. If you look at the WDAS official site, it does not mention it, but it does mention Dinosaur. Therefore the list is correct. If you look above, you'll see this has been discussed before. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the HTML comment as saying "Please don't alter the list to omit Dinosaur and include The Wild". It does not, however, say "Please don't add text saying that the U.K. has its own variant that omits Dinosaur and includes The Wild". Georgia guy (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But, this section is a list of films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios. The Wild was not. No matter what appears in what list, there is no variant. The Wild was not produced by WDAS, so does not get a mention in this section. It's further down the page in the section about films distributed by Disney but not produced by them. Maybe the wording of the note is confusing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, just reword the HTML comment to make it clearer. Georgia guy (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the wording. If you think you can improve on it, then go for it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Having said all that, I don't actually see any harm in mentioning that "...The Wild is included in some numbering systems but is not produced by WDAS..." (or something) in the lead section if you can find a source for it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the statement in the text of the list, but you put a citation needed template after it. Georgia guy (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it would be nice to have a source to show the alternate numbering system. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The HTML comment says that the U.K. spines use this numbering, suggesting that it's a valid variant even if unofficial. Georgia guy (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The revert war

We need to discuss these changes to stop this revert war. I've notified the editors involved already, but will copy my arguments here, to centralize discussion (if anyone cares to discuss it).

Copied from User talk:TheRealFennShysa#List of Disney theatrical animated features:

• [...] the ISO date format is acceptable in tables, see WP:DATESNO. Like I said, I have no preference, but claiming the full date is required per WP:MOS is incorrect.
• While Kokurikozaka kara is unsourced on this list, it is not unsourced at the link target, so removing it seems inappropriate.
• The reference for the one film you restored [Tangled] is of course appropriate, but it is less important now that that film has been released, given that this lists tends to only have references for release dates of unreleased films.
• The removal of the "wide release" date for The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad does seem appropriate per the target article.
• I don't know off-hand if your removal of the word "theatrical" is appropriate. Someone should check that.
• I don't know if your addition of the production company Walt Disney Animation Studios for Roadside Romeo is appropriate, but I'd assume not, since the target article doesn't mention it.

--Mepolypse (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How does changing the dates from long-form to ISO standard constitute as being "useful in long lists and tables for conciseness" as per WP:DATE in this case? I don't think that this is relevant for a non-sortable table that only consists of 50ish entries and, In my opinion, it actually makes it less easy to follow. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Both date formats are acceptable, so it's not very important which format we use. The major problem is all of the other issues, which you've restored with your latest revert. --Mepolypse (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the width restriction on the first table. This seems unnnecessary and makes the table a lot easier to see as a whole. No need to be consistent with the other tables, as they are in different headings and are not directly related. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree. To me the visual consistency between tables make them easier to scan. Apparently it doesn't to you. What exactly does "makes the table a lot easier to see as a whole" mean though?. The bulk of the table are the films (everything above the footnotes). This makes the first column wider than the widest content in that column (at least in my web browser). It does make the footnotes wider, but since these are smaller than regular text this means the lines are longer than normal text lines in most regular-sized browser windows. I'm not sure that's an improvement. I'm not sure the footnotes belong in the actual table in the first place, they should possibly be moved below the table. None of this is terribly important of course. --Mepolypse (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no real correlation between the films in each section, so I can't see the need to make every table on the page the same width. However, I have no problem in restricting the width of the first column, it's the date column that causes the problem (see comments below). Also, agree with your point that there is no need to have the footnotes as part of the table. These would be perfectly fine below it. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

When you say "the first column", do you mean the film title column? --Mepolypse (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious about your edit summary "this stretches the table, and makes it difficult to read clearly". In my web browser it's the complete opposite, your edit stretches the table (all three columns, and the table as a whole). Does your web browser behave differently? --Mepolypse (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

With the restricted width, what I get is six rows for some films, instead of three (in the cases where there are more than one release date for the same film). This elongates the table, and means that you see a reduced number of releases on the table on screen at any one time. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not what I get at all. With both the reduced width and the full width the entire contents of all cells (other than the footnotes) fit on all rows. The only difference is that with the unreduced width all columns are wider than they need to be (because the footnotes widen the entire table, and all columns are widened). I'm on Safari on a 1280px wide screen. What web browser and screen size do you have? Speculating, it's possible that the issue is that all columns need to have an explicit width. It's possible we could fix this by adding for example !style="width:2em"| to the first column and !style="width:23em"| to the third column. (2+25+23=50) I've tested this in my browser, where it has minimal effect. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on Internet Explorer 8, 1024 x 768 px. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've verified the problem in Internet Explorer 8. Seems like a browser bug in that browser, since we're asking it to make the whole table 50em and one column 25em, but it's making that column about 80% of the width, not 50% of the width as it should. I've also verified that my proposed fix above (mostly) fixes this in Explorer 8, so I've applied that. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to confirm, it looks absolutely fine now. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And there's no indication that Kokurikozaka kara will be distributed by Disney, so until that's clear, it doesn't belong here. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. So that's one less thing that needs to be fixed. Will you take care of the rest? --Mepolypse (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Roadside Romeo, imdb shows it as produced by Yash Raj Films and The Walt Disney Company, not Walt Disney Animation Studios.[7] I will amend accordingly.Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The other point you make regarding "theatrical" in the Ghibli section, I think I agree that it should stay. Makes things slightly clearer. Will pop this back too. Have we addressed everything now? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think so. Thanks for doing this. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disney live-action films and documentaries

I have reverted additions to this section. These films were not "produced and/or released by The Walt Disney Company" as per description in the article's header, and shouldn't really be in a table of films which could be considered "Disney" films as per heading. Maybe they could be included in their own section under "Disney animation in other feature films" or something similar - or maybe just a sentence including them would suffice. Rob Sinden (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, these films may not be produced by Walt Disney as whole but as long as Disney contributes something to a feature it is worth mentioning on article like this. I mean this list already contains list of features that Disney contributed 0 seconds to, distributed only and distribution is not the same as producing. So these four films are closer of being Disney than let say the Studio Gilibi films. Thus I can see that split is a better Idea than list everything live-action/animated together. DoctorHver (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mort rumor

Any info about the rumor regarding a film named Mort?? Do a Google search on Mort Disney. Georgia guy (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Only things I've seen have been self-published blogs, which aren't reliable enough. --McDoobAU93 23:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled Mickey Mouse film project

This article says that the untitled Mickey Mouse project has been revealed. Any discussion on what needs to be done before it can be added as #54 in the table?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It should at least be announced. It's interesting to add as a sideline, but it is only "in development", and by no means does that mean that the film will be made. Remember The Snow Queen? I'm not even sure King of the Elves should be on the table yet. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Studios/canon

There's an HTML comment saying not to change the word Studios to Canon inside this article. But people still do so. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Because they have their own beliefs about what the terminology should be, and don't care about the included notes or the context in which the current terminology (in this case, naming the studio producing the work) is used. --McDoobAU93 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, just improve the HTML comment so that editors will more likely see it. Georgia guy (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the nature of the Wikipedia beast. Putting the note there doesn't have any force or power; it just is providing information, which an editor can choose to accept or ignore. At the same time, we just undo/revert it right back when it happens. --McDoobAU93 15:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

NOT Included Anastasia and Titan A.E.

Any animated films that you thought were distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, but NOT Included Anastasia and Titan A.E. (both directed by Don Bluth & Gary Goldman and produced by 20th Century Fox). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.219.227 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct (I think). These two films do not belong in this list because Walt Disney Animation Studios had no connection to either of them. --McDoobAU93 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Compilation films, part 1

Note all of these films are made up of pre-existing Animated shorts so they are not to be included on the primary list, Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh actually falls under same catagory but unlike the others there some new animation in it so its fair to include Pooh (1977) in the main list unlike these films as to my knowledge they Didn't include any new animation. These films were released in USA. 1937

• Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons

1953

• New Year’s Jamboree
• Winter Hilarities
• Springs Frolics
• Easter Parade
• Mickey's Birthday Party
• Walt Disney's All-Cartoon Festival
• 4th of July Firecrackers
• Summer Jubilee
• Drive-In Frivolities
• Fall Varieties
• Halloween Hilarities
• Election Day Gaieties
• Thanksgiving Day Mirthquakes
• Christmas Jollities

1955

• Music Land
• 3D Jamboree

If someone wants they can include these films on the main list, not the main 50 but in another sub-selection like Pixar films, ToonDisney Studio etc. Maybe entitle sub-selection called Compilation films. DoctorHver (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources / release dates? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then again no don't include them, just have them on the talk page if anyone start to add these, most of them had 0% new animation I have heard although I cannt seems to find them and most shorts in them are can be found in there next to orginal form.DoctorHver (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

King of the Elves

Do we know yet what to do with KOTE on this list?? Google News hasn't revealed a single piece of news on this film since Wreck-It Ralph's title has been revealed. Georgia guy (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like it was shelved for a while, but according to this article from June it doesn't appear to be dead yet. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But a release of 2013 is highly unlikely because both the summer and fall of 2013 have been taken by Pixar movies; Monsters University in the summer and Dinosaurs in the fall. The summer of 2014 has been taken by a Pixar film called Inside the Brain. The fall of 2014 is most likely. Georgia guy (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just speculation on your part. In any case, all we are showing in this article is that King of the Elves is "in development", we're not giving it a release date or including it in the table. That'll do! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But the link you gave gives a release date of 2013, which I'm sure is wrong for the reasons I gave. What faulty info is there in the reasons I gave?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not showing a release year here, just that the film is "in development". Whilst you may be right that it won't be released in 2013, we don't know that for sure, so it is just speculation. I think we're doing the right thing, showing that it is in development, and not including it in the table, as not 100% confirmed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to wonder how quickly you've forgotten that just this past summer Disney and Pixar both had new releases with Winnie the Pooh and Cars 2, so it's not completely unheard of to have them release 2 films in the same general time frame. In any case, the way they article is now looks fine to me. RyanMoyer (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I never forgot that, but I strongly doubt it will be this way again. Cars 2 was released in June, but Winnie-the-Pooh was released in July. Georgia guy (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

disneyanimation.com reliable??

Is there a proof that disneyanimation.com is a reliable source?? This was used in 2008 for deciding that Dinosaur should be on the first list. However, there are 3 faulty pieces of info:

1. The Emperor's New Groove was released in 2000, but the site says 2001.
2. Lilo & Stitch should be spelled with the ampersand, but the site uses the word "and". (I saw it spelled both ways back in early 2001 when it was an upcoming film, but the logo reveals that the ampersand is correct.)
3. The Princess and the Frog should have an initial "the", but the site just says "Princess and the Frog". Georgia guy (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As it's the official website of Walt Disney Animation Studios, we can consider it reliable, but of course not infallible! I'm assuming you're not suggesting that we should remove Dinosaur from the list because of these tiny errors! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What does infallible mean?? Please explain the difference between reliable and infallible. Georgia guy (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Infallible is another way of saying perfect, or in this case it could be saying "never makes a mistake". Typos and differences in formatting do not immediately discredit a source. --McDoobAU93 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But is there any proof that the inclusion of Dinosaur isn't a mistake?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Claiming to have produced the film if they hadn't is a mistake of a different magnitude than missing an ampersand or a "the" from the title of the film. This is the closest source we have to a definitive list of films, and given that Disney marked Tangled as their 50th animated feature, the numbering coincides. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But is there a proof that they got their statement that Tangled as their 50th feature directly from their film list and not via Wikipedia?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Of all the people keeping the count, Disney would probably be the most accurate of all. I doubt VERY seriously that they came here and saw which one they were up to and said Tangled was the next one. --McDoobAU93 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about? Surely you're not suggesting that Disney themselves looked on Wikipedia to see what films they made? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm merely suggesting that it is possible that:

• Disney knew that Tangled was coming up without having to use Wikipedia
• They used Wikipedia to show that Tangled is the 50th feature. (Can you distinguish these 2 statements??) Have you, at any time between August 2008 and December 2010, seen a commercial/preview made by Disney mentioning the phrase "Disney's nth full-length animated feature" with n > 38?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm more trying to figure out why you're fighting the inclusion of Dinosaur so hard. Disney says it's included, so it's included. That should be enough, right? --McDoobAU93 15:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, from 1999: "Disney's Feature Animation computer graphics unit is currently in the final stages of completing its first in-house feature, DINOSAUR, which combines computer character animation with digitally enhanced live-action backgrounds. DINOSAUR is due for release in May 2000.", showing that Dinosaur was always made under the auspices of what was then Walt Disney Feature Animation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It is talking about the formation of The Secret Lab. Per my own memory of 1999, The Secret Lab planned to release a few films, one of which after Dinosaur was "Wild Life", but that the actual result is that it made only one film and was later disestablished. Do you know a lot about The Secret Lab's actual plans?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

From memory: The Secret Lab was rumored to be working on the first attempt at a Tron sequel in around 2002 or so, but they were disbanded by Disney soon after (or soon before), much as Disney has disbanded/assimilated ImageWorks Digital after the poor performance of Mars Needs Moms. --McDoobAU93 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What their plans were seems largely irrelevant here. As mentioned, it seems that The Secret Lab was set up under the auspices of Walt Disney Feature Animation, and that Dinosaur was therefore the first in-house CGI feature. The circumstances surrounding the amalgamation of the CGI and the hand-drawn units of Walt Disney Feature Animation, whilst probably interesting, are not important to this argument. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Any opinions on a banner??

Go to Talk:Pluto and it has near the top a banner that says:

I want to know if this talk page can have a similar banner about complaining about the inclusion of Dinosaur in the canon. Please reveal your opinion in whatever you can. Georgia guy (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are generic talk page banners that remind editors that this isn't a forum, but I don't know if we'd need one that specific. The whole reason they added that at Pluto was because that was a very recent decision to reclassify it. It's better to deal with that kind of issue whenever it comes up (see WP:BEANS). --McDoobAU93 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was a more recent decision (2008 as opposed to 2006 for Pluto) to consider Dinosaur a member of the canon by Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the standard banner will suffice. And 2008 is only the date for when the information was added to the article, not necessarily when Disney said it was part of the canon (best assumption is it was added when the film was released); 2006 is when the scientific community decided to demote Pluto, not when Wikipedia did it. --McDoobAU93 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Disney said it was part of the canon in 2008; look at the Dinosaur (film) article and it mentions this with a citation. Georgia guy (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked, and I just removed the original research from that article. The cited source makes no such statement that "Dinosaur was added in 2008"; it's just the list of films in the list per ... wait for it ... disneyanimation.com, the site you were complaining about in an earlier thread. As to the second statement, saying The Emperor's New Groove was originally 39th, again we're dealing with something years ago that could have been changed but unknown to the author of the post. Let's stick with the here and now, so please put down the stick and step away from the carcass. --McDoobAU93 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

KOTE or Mickey Mouse??

Regarding the paragraph below the heading, is there any clear argument for deciding whether King of the Elves or Mickey Mouse should be mentioned first?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

None that I can think of. If you're talking about my recent edit, what I thought I was reverting was the change of wording from "in development" to "in the works", but it appears that the same editor had previously swapped the order around, so that got rolled back too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The same editor made the same edit once again. There definitely needs to be clear consensus on what order makes more sense by the time Wreck-It Ralph is released, which is less than a year from now. Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Until a release date is announced, neither film should be in the table. Both may wind up in development hell, or they may be released in the same year. As to the order they appear in the sentence, I couldn't care less. There is more known about King of the Elves, so if I had to pick one, that'd be it. --McDoobAU93 21:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Neither film is in the table, and I'm only discussing which order the films should be mentioned in the paragraph below the table, not whether it's time to put one of them in the table. As for being in the same year, this means one might be released in the summer and one in the fall, but the earlier one will still come first. Pinocchio and Fantasia were both released in 1940, but Pinocchio was released first and it goes in the canon first. Georgia guy (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care, and I'll warn/report any editors who get into a revert war over which goes where without a VERY valid reason (and for edit-warring, there really aren't any). --McDoobAU93 21:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Extra table columns

An anon user is attempting to add a bunch of new information to the tables for the films. A lot of this is already in the articles for the respective films, so I'm trying to figure out why we need it in another place, which produces yet another value that must be updated whenever anything changes. In my opinion, this amount of redundant information should be reduced, especially when things may change (release dates in the past most likely won't, for instance). So prior to adding anything new, let's discuss what should and should not be here. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 04:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the box office figures are unnecessary (not to mention unsourced). Anyone interested in the box office figures can see the individual articles or BoxOfficeMojo. szyslak (t) 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Who Framed Mickey Mouse

This article says that Who Framed Mickey Mouse has been presented by Steven Spielberg. I'm not even sure King of the Elves will no longer be distributed by Disney, due to 20th Century Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.9.28 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Google search on "Who Framed Mickey Mouse" has only 9 results, and this is related to a "Youtube poop". This must be a fake title. Georgia guy (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if there is Mickey Mouse title in the pipeline then I sure this is not the title of what it will be called, if it ever happens.DoctorHver (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Planned 3D re-releases

I had a question regarding the recent barrage of Disney re-releases with upgraded 3D visuals. I do see that a number of films, such as Finding Nemo, Monsters, Inc. and The Little Mermaid are all being planned for 3D re-release. However, since said releases have not occurred yet, should that information not be added to the table until they do occur? After all they have not been re-released yet, and any number of things can change between now and then. Besides, the main film articles are the perfect place to discuss such plans. Again, I have no problem with listing 3D re-releases if they've already occurred, such as for The Lion King and Toy Story. Opinions? --McDoobAU93 15:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So you would just include 3D re-releases in the table and not standard re-releases that Disney was famous for doing every 10 years or so with all its movies before video? RyanMoyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

I had to look back at why I posted this before I responded to your post. Someone was adding footnotes indicating a 3-D re-release in the future, but without a source. So the question is whether or not we need the footnote for the planned films because those releases haven't occurred yet and (potentially, for whatever reason) may not occur. The already-present footnotes only say that the film has had a 3-D re-release, not when it occurred. As to Disney's prior re-release policies, that should be left to the individual articles, not this table. Besides, since the advent of the home video era, the re-releases have been occurring there instead of in the theatres (except for these 3-D upgrades, that is). --McDoobAU93 15:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Hand Drawn animation dead again?

Is hand drawn animation dead again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TsWade2 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Disney's plan is to make a CGI film every even-numbered year and a traditionally-animated film every odd-numbered year. This pattern might be disproven somewhere along the line, but we don't know. Georgia guy (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disney Animation Reliable

Was there a proof that Disney Animation Reliable source?? This was used in 2000 before The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch and The Princess and the Frog should be on the first list. However, there is only two faulty pieces of info:

• 1. The Lion King was released in 1994
• 2. Hercules was released in 1997

Well, those pieces of info are not faulty. Georgia guy (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Hero 6: Disney Classic #54 or Marvel??

The HTML comment in this article saying not to edit the list to include wrong films says Marvel films don't belong in the sequence. However, the sentence below the table says that Big Hero 6 is in the works, and if it gets late enough, it may qualify as the film belonging in the table as #54, although it is Marvel. Can anyone clear this up by revealing what should not be confused?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing we know is that Disney Animation is working on a film based on Big Hero 6. Nothing more. No release date, no production details, no marketing plans, no nothing. It could be the greatest Disney animated feature of all time, or it could wind up getting farmed out and going direct-to-video. "Marvel films" could refer to the live-action theatrical films, such as Iron Man and The Avengers, along with the various direct-to-video Marvel animated features that have been appearing in stores lately, such as Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme. --McDoobAU93 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you triple-checked the reliable sources to see whether an estimated release date is mentioned?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. As a matter of fact, here is what the reliable source that the blog post alluded to in the article said: "Walt Disney Animation‘s upcoming Big Hero 6, about a heroic superhero team, is currently an open writing assignment, with no scribe currently attached to the project. The film will be produced by Kristina Reed." That's it ... nothing else. The thing isn't even written yet. --McDoobAU93 01:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The following argument suggests that BH6 is a more likely #54 than either MM or KOTE (but no, I know this is not a proof; it's just more likely):

BH6 has been revealed by some sources as having an estimated 2014 release. Neither KOTE nor MM has been mentioned by any reliable sources that post-date the time Frozen was revealed, so they don't appear as likely. Georgia guy (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss how these films may be ordered, please take it to a more appropriate forum. --McDoobAU93 17:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Coloring the background of the 43

We know that the number backgrounds are of 2 different colors; green for traditional animation and red for computer animation. However, if "Treasure Planet" has both kinds, the 43 in the table needs a new color to indicate this; I recommend yellow. Any corrections?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hate to tell you this, but just about every hand-drawn film from The Great Mouse Detective forward has some computer-aided animation in it. The magic carpet in Aladdin, the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast, the various spaceships in Lilo and Stitch. No need for splitting hairs any further. The principle artform should govern the color. In the case of those films mentioned that do have some CGI elements, they're still hand-drawn. --McDoobAU93 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit to clarify that the green background of the 43 doesn't necessarily mean TP is fully traditionally-animated, but I was reverted. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because it's splitting hairs. That's getting into minutiae that's a bit pedantic (or over-the-top) for what we do. The average viewer isn't going to look at the ballroom scene of Beauty and the Beast and say "that film's computer-animated, I need to edit Wikipedia". Again, the main artform is enough. Further, if you really wanna get into it, most of the films since The Rescuers Down Under have been rendered in the computer, even if they were hand-drawn. --McDoobAU93 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's simply because they don't really care. They just like the films regardless of what type of animation is used for making them. Georgia guy (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And for those that do care, they can read the article about the film and learn about its animation techniques and how they incorporated CGI into their films. Let's keep the Balkanization of this list to a minimum, 'kay? --McDoobAU93 15:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Coloring number backgrounds

I propose we remove the colors of the number backgrounds for 3 reasons:

1. Many Disney movies mix traditional and computer animation. This categorization is thus not as well-defined as it might seem.
2. There are many notes inside the table, one of which is that "these films are computer-animated".
3. This difference has no real importance. There are other ways in which films can be different, such as whether the villains die, whether they are musicals, or even whether they are Disney originals.

Any objections?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope not from me, and actually it has turned into 2-D animation vs 3-D animation. DoctorHver (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Go fot it; I concur Rebel shadow 05:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Georgia guy (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What about Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure and 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure?

They are NOT feature films theatrically releases, they were Direct-to-Video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.99.151.22 (talk • contribs) 21:39, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Direct-to-video films with no theatrical release are listed at List of Disney home entertainment. szyslak (t) 07:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Snow White (1952 film)

When Snow White return to movie screen in 1952, hear it again still the fariest of them all, Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Peter Pan and Lady and the Tramp were released in the 1950s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.156 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-released of old films don't count as new films. Georgia guy (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

HTML comment addition

Any opinions on whether to add the following to the HTML comment at the top of the first list:

Lucasfilm films, whether made before or after Disney acquired Lucasfilm

in case new Lucasfilm films are made?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this film #54??

http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=26817&count=0

Is this film the 54th film in the Disney canon?? It's a remake of an older movie, but remakes and re-releases are not the same thing. Georgia guy (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess not. It probably won't be animated as remakes are usually made in the same media. In this case, the original film was a live action. Also, there are some other production companies involved in the remake, which is not the case with Disney's animated films: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118062737 --Carniolus (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding a Critical Opinion column?

The James Bond film page has critical opinions for each of the films - List of James Bond films - would anyone object if the same were done for the Disney films? Savager (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)