Talk:Walt Disney Pictures/Archives/2019

Family live action unit

This is the live action production arm of Walt Disney Company. So I do see why information about animated films were/are being added to the article nor recognizing the start of the unit from the start of the parent unit. Disney Bros. Cartoon Studio did not start out with a live action feature film unit. Spshu (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney Feature Animation/Walt Disney Animation Studios also have the Disney name in it and so does the distribution arm, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. (see the disambig. hatnote at the top of the page: "Not to be confused with Walt Disney Studios (division), Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, or Walt Disney Studios (Burbank).") Jedi94, the both of us already when through the fact that the distribution arm and the live production arm of Walt Disney Studios used the same name. Spshu (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The thing is all animated films that have been produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation/Animation Studios (WDAS) and Pixar have been released through the Walt Disney Pictures banner, which is a separate (but similarly named) unit from Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. Neither WDAS nor Pixar are their own release labels; they have all been released under the main Disney brand. Every WDAS film from The Black Cauldron onwards has been released in this format, as well as every Pixar film since Toy Story. Walt Disney Pictures is credited at the beginning of these films and the studio's castle logo is featured at the start of every film. That is why these animated films have been included here and why I believe they should still be included. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD @Favre1fan93 @Trivialist @Wikicontributor12 @Tenebrae @Rusted AutoParts Pinging other users to add new voices and to keep discussion from being between just two users. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked at some Disney titles to see which company is linked as a distributor/production company.

The Lion King - Walt Disney Pictures

Toy Story - Walt Disney Pictures

Sky High - Walt Disney Pictures

Frozen - Walt Disney Pictures

Pete's Dragon - Walt Disney Pictures

The examples all include Walt Disney Pictures as a production company or distributor so I wouldn't say it's incorrect to include animated films. Rusted AutoParts 02:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the fact that WDAS and Pixar's films are distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, I can certainty see Jedi94's point. Similar to Rusted AutoParts said, I don't think it would be wrong include them. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the discussion's central issue is. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Spshu has been removing the mention of animated films from WDAS and Pixar from this article on the basis that Walt Disney Pictures is involved in live-action films only. Several edit reversions have happened as I believe that these animated films should not be removed per my aforementioned reasons. In short, Walt Disney Pictures is a live-action film production studio but also releases animated films from those two studios. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think distinctions are being drawn that don't really matter. Walt Disney Pictures releases live-action and animated films, so there's no reason to not include both. Also, Walt Disney Animation Studios didn't even get separate billing, as it were, until after Disney bought Pixar. Trivialist (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

←AutoParts, look again, your list is incorrect (Lion King and Sky High list Buena Vista Pictures as distributor) and meaningless (as they can be making the same mistake that Jedi94 is making). Tenebrae, there is no issue except to convey that Jedi94 (originally) and others are not properly disambiguate separate but similarly named Disney units. It says right in the disambig. hatnote that you may confuse this topic with another, one of which is the distribution arm, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The same problem can crop up with the animation unit, Walt Disney Animation Studios, as it can just be credit as "Disney".

business unit type	name as of 1988	current name	AKA (also know as)
Movie studio co.	Walt Disney Studios (division)		Disney
animation production	Disney Feature Animation	Walt Disney Animation Studios	Disney
Live production	Walt Disney Pictures, Inc.		Disney Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Production
Distributor	Buena Vista Film Distribution	Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures	Disney Walt Disney Pictures

Walt Disney Animation Studios was not called Walt Disney Animation Studios until they bought Pixar, before that it was Disney Feature Animation. Thus it could not be billed as such, Trivialist. We would not credit the live action films to the animation unit thus we would not credit the live action production company with animation (unless it is a unit there of, which it is not). In short, Walt Disney Pictures is a live-action film production company therefor does not releases animated films from the two animation units. The distribution arm, the former Buena Vista Film/Pictures Distribution, Disney Studios Motion Pictures does. It is original research to decide that the production arm is now a distributor, when they have a distributor. Spshu (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Check this previous talk section regarding correctly sourcing the distribution company. Jedi94, You are confused know as you were then or you knowingly disregarded @RicJac:'s answer. Spshu (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

All my examples specifically include Walt Disney Pictures in the infobox as a production company. I am not incorrect. Rusted AutoParts 01:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not what you said: "distributor/production company". You are incorrect. Spshu (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I phrased it as distributor/production company in an either or structure. And seeing as it's used in the infobox for either or, i am not incorrect, and neither are people adding animated films into the page. Rusted AutoParts 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

1."We would not credit the live action films to the animation unit thus we would not credit the live action production company with animation (unless it is a unit thereof, which it is not)." This point is moot as no one is crediting live-action films to the animation unit in the first place. This discussion circulates only around Walt Disney Pictures and the animated films of Walt Disney Animation Studios / Walt Disney Feature Animation (WDAS) and Pixar. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures/Buena Vista Pictures Distribution (WDSMP) is not the subject of discussion here. WDSMP distributes every Walt Disney Studios film regardless of production studio origin, whether it be Disney, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, Disneynature, or Touchstone, etc. Instead, the point that is being stressed here is that Walt Disney Pictures is a live-action production unit AND one that also serves as a release banner for Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar films, a fact that is provided and stated clearly in the "About Us" boilerplate provided by the studio itself. This fact is also painfully proven with the obvious 32-year history of animated features from WDAS and Pixar wherein every animated film produced by these two studios has been released under the Walt Disney Pictures banner. Take a gander at the release poster and opening credits for films such as Beauty and the Beast or Toy Story as evidence for example.

2. "Check this previous talk section regarding correctly sourcing the distribution company. Jedi94, You are confused know as you were then or you knowingly disregarded RicJac's answer." You are referring to a question I asked for the purposes of clarity over six years ago (as if my understanding of something can't change) and you're hastily inferring that that is my current viewpoint in this discussion? That is not a fair assumption to make. To answer your unjust inquiry though; no, I'm not. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, by using the slash (/) you are indicating that you are going to give distribution company follow by the production company separated by a slash (/), not what you intended. By listing only one, you indicate that they are both.

1. It is not moot as this same just in reverse (re: live action being credit to animated unit). Walt Disney Pictures is the live action unit. Jedi94 by adding animated films as top grossing films of the live action production arm, which is incorporated, you are attempt to credit the animated films to the live action unit. WDSMP is a subject here as you are confusion that it is WDP, Inc. , seeing either Walt Disney Studios or WDSMP being shorten as Disney or Disney Pictures, you jump to the conclusion that it must refer to Walt Disney Pictures. The "About Us" boilerplate just states "Feature films are released under the following banners: Disney, including Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios" not absolutely Walt Disney Pictures, Inc. The Disney banner may including Walt Disney Pictures and WDAS and Pixar, doesn't mean that the Disney banner is Walt Disney Pictures.

I was point to RicJac that you had your answer before, which you did not challenge and I would have join the discussion if you did. If you did not get clarity then why no follow up? And that it is another editors stance in the matter. So, RicJac's opinion does count?

• Deadline: "Even when you run Disney’s most tenured moviemaking division, it is easy to feel overshadowed when you are a silo alongside Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm and Walt Disney Animation Studios. But this past weekend marked a watermark moment for Sean Bailey and his Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and forgive them if they are puffing out their chests this week, days after Beauty And The Beast way surpassed projections and set records that put the film on a course to potentially crack the hallowed $1 billion mark."

• "Disney’s live-action division, which once struggled through an identity crisis and pricey flops like John Carter and The Lone Ranger, has found its sweet spot. The musical casts a light on an unsung part of the Disney moviemaking machine that has learned to lean in heavily on the live-action adaptations of beloved Disney-branded animated films. The label, which had two Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels in the billion-dollar club, notched its third with the Tim Burton-directed Johnny Depp-starrer Alice In Wonderland. It now seems a matter of time before Beauty And The Beast becomes its fourth."

No animated films credit to the live action unit. (Media seems to use division as a synonym for subsidiary.)

TWDC Studio Entertainment: "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Industry: Live-Action Film Production, Founded: 1950" "Disney has explored new worlds through magical storytelling since its first completely live-action film, Treasure Island in 1950. " not 1923. Spshu (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not confusing one thing with another and I'd prefer that you stop inferring that. You mention that "The Disney banner may including Walt Disney Pictures and WDAS and Pixar, doesn't mean that the Disney banner is Walt Disney Pictures." In that case, how is that distinction being made and by whom? And where are the sources to support everything included in that table you provided?
You also have yet to counter films themselves. Let's take a look at the company's production credits for Walt Disney Animation Studios' Moana as an example. Both Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures are credited separately in this animated film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios. In fact, all three units (Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures) are given clear individual credit and acknowledgement. No confusion there on the studio's part. The Walt Disney Pictures logo is also featured in these animated films.
As for that other discussion you keep resurrecting from the grave: RicJac replied after a whole year, during which I had already received the necessary clarity on the subject. Therefore, I felt no obligation to revisit that dormant discussion after RicJac's reply. Not because RicJac's opinion didn't matter, but because there would have been no real constructive gain in responding to it at that point. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

←I am inferring that you are confused since that is the basis of my argument. You mention the quote as being iron clad that you were right, but it doesn't. I have not counter the films since they have not been offer. You offered the promotion poster. Both of which are self-sourcing. But here you go for the Moana film credits:

• page2: "©2016 Disney Enterprises, Inc." copyright indicates legal authorship, perhaps "Disney" banner refers to this company, the former Walt Disney Company
• page 3 (i): "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" - can mean distributor or production company, so unclear
• page 3 (i): "Executive Producer . . . . JOHN LASSETER" Lasseter is know to be chief creative officer WDAS , note no other executive producer
• Page 10 (viii) "THE STAFF OF WALT DISNEY ANIMATION STUDIOS" credits start
• Page 13 (xi): "Distributed by WALT DISNEY STUDIOS MOTION PICTURES"
• Page 13 (xi): "Created and Produced at WALT DISNEY ANIMATION STUDIOS Burbank, CA" (general Disney logo present - Castle version)
• Page 14 (1): "From Walt Disney Animation Studios comes Moana, a sweeping, CG-animated feature film..."
• page 16 (2): "Moana is rated PG. Walt Disney Animation Studios’ 56th animated feature sails into U.S. theaters on Nov. 23,

2016." Sorry, there is no "clear individual credit and acknowledgement" of all three. Only Walt Disney Animation Studios and Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures have clear credits. Spshu (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"Walt Disney Pictures presents" and its own logo is not clear enough? "can mean distributor or production company, so unclear" - What does that mean? And according to whom, your interpretation? Walt Disney Pictures isn't even a distributor. So how can that credit be unclear? What do you mean the films have not been "offered" in argument? I've cited animated films throughout this discussion. The Black Cauldron, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Toy Story, Finding Nemo, are just some examples of WDAS and Pixar films that credit Walt Disney Pictures within themselves. In fact, these films all come from a point in time when Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures wasn't even known as that (it still went by the Buena Vista name), so how could there be any particular cross-confusion with Walt Disney Pictures, when the distributor and production company went by completely different names at that time? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Walt Disney Present" can be distributor or production company means that standard crediting "presents" may be the distributor or production company, since the distribution company uses the same name as the production company and can both be commonly referred to as Walt Disney Pictures. "Its own logo is not clear enough?" No Walt Disney Pictures logo was present as indicated by run down I gave of page 13/xi which has the generic logo and credits distribution by WDSMP. The castle logo is or has been used by the distribution unit but it is a general Disney logo particular in the Studio entertainment segment (Disney Music Group.

You wanted me to look at the promotional poster or the wikipedia articles. The promotional poster are too small and you know that it isn't preferred to cite them being self sourcing and Wikipedia article are not sources (nor am I going to run out and buy their DVDs). Buena Vista Distribution and other distribution units were group into Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group around 2001 (Lyman, Rick (June 21, 2001). "Chairman of Disney's Studios Resigns to Return to Broadway". New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2015. while the production units: Hollywood Pictures, Touchstone, Disney Pictures and Caravan were grouped in Buena Vista Pictures Group, which later apparently became Disney Motion Pictures Group). That is one possibility why "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" is used. Perhaps, for kid/family fare, Walt Disney Pictures was/is a label of Buena Vista Distribution/WDSMP (like Touchstone was used by WDSMP for DreamWorks). Or Walt Disney Feature Animation (WDFA) used Walt Disney Pictures as a label. Or may be Walt Disney Pictures is WDFA's (hands off mostly) parent company thus can be credited (being budgeted/funded through WDP). (Similarly that Disney TV Animation can take credit for Disney MovieToons/Video Premieres's work before becoming DisneyToon Studios in the Disney Studios divison.) As we discussed before (although I cannot seem to find where, in which you suggest merging the two articles) is that probably the two units would not be separate articles if the distribution unit was not incorporated and did not operate under a different name thus having its own history. Spshu (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to convey, lol! That Walt Disney Pictures is also a label used by WDSMP for family/animated films (much like Touchstone was used for DreamWorks, per your example). Even though Walt Disney Pictures is a live-action unit, it was and is still used by the company as a conduit release banner for WDAS and Pixar films.~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

So, you disavow what this unit actually does and dump animated films as if it did them? Spshu (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Disney Revival Era (2007-2019):

After Chicken Little in late 2005, these are 11 animated features in the Disney Revival Era in order of appearance:

• 47. The Princess and the Frog (2007) is just look like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Aladdin.
• 48. Bolt (2008) is just look like Sword in the Stone and Oliver & Company.
• 49. Meet the Robinsons (2009) is just look like 101 Dalmatians and The Great Mouse Detective.
• 50. Tangled (2010) is just look like Fantasia and Fantasia 2000 and Beauty and the Beast.
• 51. Winnie the Pooh: The Movie (2011) is just look like Dumbo and The Rescuers Down Under.
• 52. Wreck-it Ralph (2012) is just look like Pinocchio and The Little Mermaid.
• 53. Frozen (2013) is just look like Cinderella and Pocahontas.
• 54. Big Hero 6 (2014) is just look like Bambi and Simba's Pride.
• 55. Zootopia (2016) is just look like Alice in Wonderland and The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
• 56. Moana (2016) is just look like Peter Pan and Hercules.
• 57. Wreck-it Ralph 2: Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) is just look like Lady and the Tramp and Mulan.

Note: The Princess and the Frog is the 47th animated feature produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios in 2007, that Prince Naveen is the 14th Disney Hero of all-time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.18.244 (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)