Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated feature films

message: Stupid question. The opening and closing to Sleeping Beauty (with the book) certainly look like live action. Assuming they are, should note 2 be added? Or is it just too minor to add? --NE2 05:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They are indeed. I believe D23's YouTube channel might have a video on how the book was restored to its original form; I did see a podcast of it, but don't know if it's on YouTube, though. Yes, it's too minor to add. Personally, Note 2 is pointless and shouldn't even be in use.  --McDoobAU93 06:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sleeping Beauty live action sequences? 

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

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

message: What happened to Hand Drawn Animation at Disney? Didn't John Lasseter like it anymore?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.232.88 (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You would probably need to ask Mr. Lasseter about that. Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss that. The talk page is intended to be used by editors who are working to improve the article, not to discuss the article subject.  --McDoobAU93 15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: IMO the article shouldn't discriminate or make note about whether a film was "traditionally animated" or was a mix of or has live-action scenes. The detailed lists from each respective studio should include those technicalities and details. This list should only provide an overview. -- Rebel shadow 20:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Animation off for 4 years 

message: What's the difference among these 3 films that makes it so that the external link recently added is a reliable source for Zootopia and Giants but not Moanna?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The original source (which was deleted, but its cached version can be accessed here) was not certain about the "Moana"'s release date.--Carniolus (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zootopia, Giants, Moanna 

message: http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/our-films changed its official list. It omits The Many Adventures of Winnie-the-Pooh and The Rescuers, but includes Paperman. Georgia guy (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait it out before making any drastic edits; looks like they just launched this updated portion of their site. Otherwise any discussion on inclusion/edits to the official WDAS list should be made here. -- Rebel shadow 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update. The site corrected its list to include the 2 films mentioned above. However, it also still includes Paperman. Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh oh! 

message: If the other animation companies (DreamWorks, Blue Sky e.g.) have their rating on the list, then why can't Disney? --Adam the silly (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that just because a similar page is organized one way doesn't mean that all pages like it must be organized the same way. Why should we include critical ratings that are primarily US-centric? Shouldn't that be left to the individual articles?  --McDoobAU93 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what you mean the ratings are US-centric?  Don't the ratings apply to all the people in the world.  What is different in each world is box office performance, and that isn't what was being added. --Adam the silly (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The ratings used in Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are almost entirely based in the United States. That's what I mean by US-centric.  --McDoobAU93 19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I never agreed that it should be added on this page if your aim is to add ratings for individual animation companies. For these films specifically in the WDAS "canon" it's more appropriate to add under a 'Critical Response' section in the List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films page or in a self-contained table there (separate from the main list table), and don't add ratings here since this page is for overall Disney-branded films. This page needs some major reworking as it is. -- Rebel shadow 21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings for movies 

message: I remember the good old list that had the Disney classic films 1-54 with numbers. Any way to bring the numbers back?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find that at List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. - Rebel shadow 00:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No numbers 

message: If computer-animation will be loses, hand-drawn animation wins.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.140.59 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hand-Drawn Animation vs. Computer-Animation 

message: Before I edited this list, it stated that all of Disney's animated films had been originally distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, a film label that did not exist until 1984. All pre-1953 Disney animated feature films were originally released by RKO Radio Pictures, as Disney did not have its own distribution company. The one exception is Fantasia, which Disney originally road-showed on its own. The live-action Victory Through Air Power was released by United Artists, and the True-Life Adventures were the start of Disney's own distribution company Buena Vista Distribution. Buena Vista distributed product from Walt Disney Productions (still no "Walt Disney Pictures" or "The Walt Disney Company" at the time) through 1984, when Walt Disney Pictures and Touchstone Pictures were created as film labels under Buena Vista. Buena Vista changed its name to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures in 2007.
Most of this information should be found on the The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Animation Studios articles. Just wanted to make sure this was all clear before someone tried to fly into a rage and revert the page back (by the way, the organization/ordering arrows still work just fine with the separated headers breaking the eras apart).--FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution companies 

message: Possibly I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any key to the colour codes in the final column of the tables? While on the subject, relying on colour coding alone isn't very accessible! - Khendon (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still true. Was the key removed at some point, or what has happened? Clearly it is not right. 85.217.20.78 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours in table 

message: They are not feature films theatrically releases, they were direct-to-video.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not included in the list, so not sure what the point of this thread is.  --McDoobAU93 20:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Because the title of the article is "List of Disney theatrical animated features".  --McDoobAU93 03:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ''Cinderella II'' & ''Cinderella III: A Twist in Time''? 

message: The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea (2000) is not on the list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_II:_Return_to_the_Sea  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.29.172 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as the others, these are direct-to-video and not theatrical releases. If you can find a reliable source indicating the film got a theatrical release somewhere, then it might be included.  --McDoobAU93 03:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea 

message: I noticed that there are a few films from studio Ghibli that did not make the list. For instance Castle in the sky, The cat returns, My neighbor Totoro, Whisper of the heart, Spirited Away, and The secret world of Arrietty. I am sure there are more but I can't think of them right now. Can you please look into them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.87.230 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As these films were, as you indicated, produced by Studio Ghibli, they are not Disney films.  --McDoobAU93 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about studio Ghibli Castle in the Sky? 

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

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

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

message: If so, where are the Aladdin sequels (eg, [Aladdin and the King of Thieves])?
If not, it should be stated explicitly, with a link to the complete list of releases. Also, the opening line should not say 'all'. 
CactusPolecat (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, just spotted the topics above re other direct-to-video releases. So, I now get it. Still, where is the complete list of all releases? And my points regarding the meaning of 'theatre' and a clear statement regarding the scope of this article still stand.
CactusPolecat (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this list include direct-to-video releases? 

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

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

message: Under "Other films by other non-Disney owned studios, released through Miramax"
The film Paris 2054: Renaissance is typo'd it says "Paris 2054: Rennaissance" but should say "Paris 2054: Renaissance". 50.43.28.161 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 07:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris 2054: Renaissance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Disney theatrical animated features. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130121160130/http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history to http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130121160130/http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history to http://www.disneyanimation.com/studio/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: FilmandTVFan28, if other hybrid films (live-action and animation) are allowed here, should we include Mary Poppins and its sequel? Films on this list like The Reluctant Dragon and Song of the South are mostly live-action with only a few minutes of animation, just like Mary Poppins. I think Mary Poppins and its sequel shoulx be included on the list? Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them should be included as they are not animated features so are out-of-scope for this article. It is like the difference between a musical film and a film that has a few songs in it. For a hybrid to be considered it should be mostly animated with occasional live action sequences. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Enchanted, G-Force, The Jungle Book, The BFG, Christopher Robin and Dumbo are Disney's live-action/animated hybrid films.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B111:1DBD:4490:D8B2:DE39:572D (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless called that in their article by reliable sources they are not. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

text: We already have a List of films with live action and animation. What is your point? Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid films 

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

message: The 2019 version of The Lion King seems out of place on this list. Technically, yes, it's animated, but it's not done in any recognizably animated style. The CGI Jungle Book, which was similarly photorealistic, is not included, so why is The Lion King here?  Powers T 14:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't the Jungle Book remake have live-action elements, though? The Lion King remake was created using animation, so it should be included even if it doesn't obviously look animated. Trivialist (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are tons of movies on this list that include live-action elements; there's even a footnote identifying them. Only Jungle Book is missing, and I assume that's because it was photorealistic and not "animated" in style. Powers T 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't seen it, so I don't know how much live-action material it has. But if it's mostly animated, then it should be added too, photorealistic or not. Trivialist (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

message: Excuse me. (For the purpose of this edit, please ignore the dis-ambiguation header at the top of this article; it's not the subject of this discussion.)
One thing I can do is sort the table by studio. This makes it so that the movies are segregated, and one section is the Disney animated features canon. However, this is only nearly true:
(1) Academy Award Review is included as if it were the first movie in the canon. (This would make Snow White the second, and Fantasia 2000 the 39th.) Does it look obvious at all that it's not part of the canon despite the way it is treated by this list??
(2) Dinosaur is put at the bottom to indicate that it was made by The Secret Lab. Does it look obvious at all that this doesn't mean it's not part of the canon (back in the days barely after the Disney Animation web site launched, there was a lot of discussion and by late 2010 it was agreed that Dinosaur is the canon's 39th film)??
(Please remember that the subject of this discussion is how we can segregate the films on this list by using the Sort option, which has the option of sorting the films on this list by studio, and doing so segregates the films so that one group is the Disney animated features canon.) Georgia guy (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with this suggestion as the Disney Animation canon, once located here, has since been moved to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films. It's not just a matter of disambiguation; that canon was once one of the purposes of this list, but no longer is. --RBBrittain (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's no longer a purpose of this list, then what still is a purpose of this list (with no other Wikipedia article competing this one)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Disney features canon 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. It's time to close this, and there's not much appetite for the proposed move, since it would also require shuffling of contents.   No such user (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Disney theatrical animated feature films →  – This title is a remnant from before Disney Plus was created, where "theatrical" was understood to be defined as contrasting with being direct-to-video, not with the not-yet-existent-at-that-time Disney Plus. Georgia guy (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 31 March 2021 

message: I think this page should be deleted or re-direct users to a different page. First of all the info on this page is available on other pages. Second it's being cluttered by moves that most people would not consider animated. It's also missing films that potentially should be added due to the current low criteria (example The Lizzie McGuire Movie). For a full list of films animated an hybrid people should be directed to List of Walt Disney Pictures films. For animated films made and distributed by disney you should link to List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films List of Pixar films Disney Television Animation Disneytoon Studios. These four pages cover the vast majority of what's on this page (items not on them are on the full list). Andcbii (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You can take it through the WP:AFD process if you'd like, though this will probably be an uphill battle for you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete or Redirect

message: Bring back the colors that explained which studio they mainly are from. Pederjo99 (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour coding 

message: Why is it on the list? I looked it up. Disney rejected making the movie straight out. 70.120.59.90 (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The film is rejected by D23 as such so yes, it shouldn't be on this list, and should be removed every time it re appears https://d23.com/a-to-z/brave-little-toaster-the-film/DoctorHver (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Walt Disney Pictures was involved in the titles and opticals, so it should particularly count as one. 86.133.213.239 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disney didn't make The Brave Little Toaster.  

message: I just added Alice in Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Alice Through the Looking Glass to the list as a public service announcement because they count as "Disney theatrical animated feature films", but the edit of mine kept getting reverted without explanation. WHY? IS IT BECAUSE THE PERSON HASN'T WATCH EITHER OF THESE MOVIES AT ALL? 213.58.176.66 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: These films were not sold as animation, but as Live-action as stupid as that sounds especially in the case of Lion King 2019, with that said I think US and western film industry needs to dive Live-action films into two groups i.e pure-live action where there is no visible CGI, VFX or special effects such as most if not all comedy and drama films which are grounded in reality not to mention biographical films. and then start using the term Live-action cartoons i.e films that are so heavily dependent on CGI, VFX and special effects from them to function properly and have no bases in any kind of reality.DoctorHver (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roth/Kirschenbaum Films projects that have CGI characters count. 

message: Soul and Turning Red are not published under the right years that the movies were released in inside of the table (for Soul, change 2024 to 2020, and for Turning Red, change 2024 to 2022). 74.15.214.79 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: You are correct that those films were already released earlier than stated in the article. However, this list is about the theatrical release date, and the earlier dates you're referring to are releases on Disney+. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024 

message: The first and second link in the hatnote look to me like the overlinking that WP:HATEXTRA warns against. Users who end up here are looking for an article about films, not about filmmaking entities. Non-dab links like those belong, and already are, in the lede instead. 
- 2A02:560:5811:5600:9F6:BD9B:4846:6530 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024 

message: Hello! I added "Fluppy Dogs" to the list of Disney Theatrical Animated Films, but it keeps being removed. I tried to check the standards for what would qualify to be on this page. (A clearer explanation on the page itself would be helpful both for the audience and for anyone trying to contribute). 
- "This list of theatrical animated feature films consists of animated films produced or released by The Walt Disney Studios, the film division of The Walt Disney Company." Fluppy Dogs was produced by 'Walt Disney Television Animation', which is on the list.
- I understand that the 'Fluppy Dogs' film was developed as a pilot to a television series, but the series was never made. 
- It is feature-length, going by the standards set on wikipedia's pages on "Feature Films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film and "Lists of animated films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_animated_films (it's 45 minutes long).
I left a similar comment on the Talk page of the first user who deleted my entry, asking to discuss why it would or wouldn't be included, but they deleted my comment without reply. I hope that mentioning this here is a more appropriate place, and that I might get some sort of response! (Long-time wikipedia user, very occasional contributor, still learning!) :)
Thanks,
Jellybeangrrl Jellybeangrrl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluppy Dogs