Talk:List of computer-animated films

message: For how much longer are we going to keep extending this list? At some point, computer-animated films will have become so normal and ubiquitous that this list would start looking like List of movies... — Timwi 11:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expected growth 

message: Why isnt Catapillars here? Did you neglect to do your homework? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 21:18, November 10, 2005.
: Clearly, you didn't add it either, so stop complaining and do your own homework. (P.S. there is no film with that name on IMDb.) — Timwi 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Computer Animated Film? 

message: Should a movie like Waking Life be included, or does this list only refer to cartoons?--216.165.33.63 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed South Park because, while it is technically animated by computers, so was Waking Life and so have any cartoons created in the past couple years. However, since the common usage for "computer-animated film" refers to 3D movies, I tried to explain this in the intro of the article. It would be unusual to say, "did you see that new computer animated movie-- South Park?" If we disagree, then I would propose an article name change. The focus of the article is to chronicle significant 3D CG movies, but I thought that would make the article too long, so I tried to fix it by explaining the common usage. —Wikibarista 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waking Life / South Park 

message: Would anyone object making this list similar to this one?  Rather than listing all films 4 times (alphabetical, studio, chronological, country), we could simply list everything once and allow users to click on the attribute which they would like the list to be ordered by. Esn 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I totally agree with that. Since you've already shown up with an alternative (and a good one, I might add), I support the idea of restruturation. Sure, if you keep all the vital information by just sorting and cleaning it, and taking care about the production companies stuff (we don't want to put any wrong info here, do we). But that's something that can be dealt with later with much more accuracy. — LuizAlves 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've decided to put it up, since it's been over a week since my original suggestions, and there have been no objections and one vote of support.  I don't think there are a lot of people watching this page anyway, so I'm not sure that waiting any more will do much good. Esn 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That kicks major butt. I had no idea that list ordering had been implemented! And I know IMDb is confusing about "production" vs. "distribution", etc., but we really need to choose the company that best "released" the film, over animating it. Unfortunately, you're right, IMDb doesn't make that distinction for us, so we'll have to use other sources. Only listing major distribution companies was a great decision, I just felt that listing them under the "umbrella" of, say, Nickelodeon or Square pictures would help make this list a resource. Maybe we can figure out a way to list that... later! For now, it's great. —Wikibarista 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion of radical restructuring

message: Now that CG is more prominent, we should remove direct-to-video releases to keep the list managable. Whadya think? —Wikibarista 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already do that.  The intro says that only theatrically-released films are allowed.  All of the films currently on the list were theatrically released in some country or other (or will be theatrically released, on the case of the "future films" section). Esn 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclude direct-to-video 

message: I just made a change to hopefully make it more clear to Americans that the release dates should not be changed to the dates of wide release in the United States.  Do you think it's a bit too much right now?  I've only seen the Americans do this so far, and I admit that it's a bit frustrating... Esn 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US wide release

message: A certain anonymous editor insists on changing the release dates to the American ones.  This might be a common confusion among the readers of this article; that the release dates listed should be the ones advertised in their country.  So I was wondering if the other editors think it would be a good idea to reference each and every release date, to hopefully put these confusions to rest? Esn 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release dates

message: Why has this page been practically reverted to its original state?  I thought that the very point of making a sortable table was that it would cut down on the cumbersome repetition of information (which meant that in the old version of this article, films would constantly get added to one place but not another).  It's simple to find out which studio has made which film simply by sorting the table by studio (click on that little button beneath "studio").  Ditto for the year list. 
I would like to ask the other editors: is there really widespread support for adding the studio and year lists again? Especially when this sortable tables? 
Anyway, since there was support above among the other editors for changing the layout, I'm reverting it back to its original state.  I think the correct procedure here is for Cnota to explain his rationale before making such a drastic change.
Esn 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One possible argument I foresee from Cnota's side is that splitting the table into released and upcoming films makes it harder to search for films by studio because you have to search in both sections - released films and unreleased films.  If this is trully a concern, I suppose they could be combined.  Combining them also has a negative aspect because it would be harder to sort only those films that have been released by alphabet or studio. Esn 00:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The studio and year lists

message: Recently, an anonymous IP editor has hade numerous changes to the release dates of several films, citing only the American releases - this is incorrect, as the page clearly states Release date listed is the first public theatrical screening of the completed film. This may mean that the dates listed here are not representative of when the film came out in your resident country, or when it was widely-released in the United States.
On his changes - Cars was released first in Australia on June 8, 2006, not June 9, as his change claimed. Similarly, Ice Age 2 was released in many countries on March 29, 2006, not the 31st as changed. Similarly, all the other changes I've reverted on release dates are to the correct dates - the anonymous editor is wrong, and can be proven so, no matter his claims otherwise, as the evidence does not support his claims. TheRealFennShysa 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date changes 

message: Now that Disney bought Pixar and all of the films have been branded Disney/Pixar shouldn't they be listed a s so? I will list them as Disney/Pixar for now. Comment if you oppose. Martini833 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, IMDB lists both of them as production companies for all of the affected films.  So no, I don't oppose. Esn 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I oppose. These should be retained for accuracy, not changed to reflect their current state, just like PDI and DreamWorks Animation should remain separate. In fact, why is PDI (and the Pacific Data Images article) still listing new films under the PDI header, PDI was no more as soon as they merged, that seems very inaccurate. Anyway, for the PDI/DreamWorks listings we could use the  template to group them together. Disney/Pixar would sort right next to Pixar if they were listed as Pixar/Disney. Maybe I'll just do it for PDI for now and see how that works. —Wikibarista 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disney/Pixar

message: Is this CGI??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnota (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 April 2007
:No, it's an advanced type of rotoscoping.  I think this list is more for 3D computer animation, otherwise it would have included almost every 2D-animated film since the 1990s. Esn 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding [[A Scanner Darkly]]??

message: I propose the tables be seperated into US produced and International. Any thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnota (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 April 2007
:You can already do that.  Just click on the box under (or beside) the "country" heading and scroll down to "USA".  Esn 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables by USA/International

message: Is there any argument that the release date listed should be for the country in which the production company is based?Cnota
:Yes, the guideline is currently for the first public release, wherever it was.  If we do it for the country in which the production company is based, what about films which were made between two or more countries?  There's one film which has companies from five countries involved. Also, some films were released in their home countries some while after they were released in other places. For example, , .  Having said that, I'm not categorically against the idea... I just wonder about the solution for multi-country films, and I'd like to know what other editors think about the idea. Esn 06:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Dates

message: The list on this article should be more along the lines of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animated_feature_films
Because it is so much easier to read.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlauzon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the current format allows the opportunity to sort by things like alphabet, year, country and studio, so I think it's more useful overall (and much easier to edit than what we had last March). Esn (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List Should Be Made Like The Animated Features List

message: Just went through the list and noticed the movie Foodfight! had been removed, why is that? Or is it a mistake? GoogleMe (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was [[Foodfight!]] removed? 

message: There is no reason to keep this list limited to "theatrically-released" films, it should be a list for ALL computer-animated films icluding those that were made and released directly for home video  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.116.80 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be against that, as long as we add another column to the table titled something like "theatrically released" with green/red yes/no options. Like this. That way, it would still be possible to sort only for films that are theatrically-released. Esn (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we get into the notability argument again. Granted, many of these direct-to-video movies are notable just because they are sequels to feature films. I'd rather change the title of the article to "...feature films" than see every direct-to-video movie in there. — Wikibarista (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no decision has really been made on this and the page is still described as theatrically released films, I have removed Open Season 2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluentchaos (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Open Season 2 received a limited release outside of the US, so it should be retained on this list. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct-To-Video Should be Included 

message: I'd like to throw in a yes/no or date box for release in stereoscopic 3D. This seems to be something relatively unique to CG movies these days. I would add something like this:
:Computer-animated films are being released or re-released in stereoscopic 3D due to the ability to re-render the source material using original computer-stored objects, or by using computer-aided techniques to fake the depth information and simulate a "second eye". Viewing typically happens through circularly polarized 3D glasses in theaters that are using a commercially-released Real D Cinema system.
And add a column for "3D Release Date", with a date or perhaps just an icon indicating that it has been released theatrically in 3D, like a little pair of 3D glasses? — Wikibarista (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D Stereoscopic notation/release date? 

message: As this is the english Wikipedia and per the FILM:MOS, we only list release date information for english-speaking countries (that is, english as the primary language).  This means that the majority of the foreign-released only and other foreign release info for films on this list will be deleted.  Wanted to provide a heads-up before the cull begins. SpikeJones (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that policy applies to articles, not lists. It seems that when listing CG films, it's about the technology, not the language. For a complete list, you'd want to include non-english-speaking films. —Wikibarista (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  massive deletion coming 

message: Please,you don´t delete the numbers.I will complete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OAV (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason for these numbers. I have removed them. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete Numbers

message: Hi, I'm new to this, so don't want to step on any toes and am not sure how to make edits myself.
I've read throught this discussion page for this article and it seems that there is an acknowledged inconsistancy in the way the releases dates in the article.  I've noticed that the release date for Tintin is the American one although it has already been on general release in Europe for a while. I think it should be moved from the "upcoming films" list into the "released films" list with the release date of October 22 2011 (which was the first public theatrical screening of the completed film as per the Wikipedia page for the film itslef).
Hopefully someone who reads this post can make the correction as I really have no idea how to!! 
Thanks
90.218.38.119 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date for Tintin 

message: While browsing the list, I saw "Stuart Little" and the sequels on it, as well as The Smurfs 1 and 2.  I would think that films like that should be removed, or at least moved to a separate section in the article for "Live-Action/CG Hybrid Films".  The Garfield movies aren't on the list (and shouldn't be,) and Stuart Little and The Smurfs shouldn't be either.  I presume Stuart Little and other titles are often added/deleted due to some editors not following the requirements for the list.
I WOULD like to see a separate section for movies like Garfield, The Smurfs, Stuart Little, Yogi Bear, etc.; where the primary character(s) are animated in CG and placed into a live-action world.  There should be some form of cut-off, however, as ideally something like Star Wars (Jar-Jar) or Lord of the Rings (Gollum) wouldn't qualify for such a list.  I think Dinosaur is a unique example, and should probably be included in the "full CG" list, as ALL characters are animated (even if the backgrounds are live-action.)  Happy Feet is another 'rulebreaker', 99% of the movie is CG except for one sequence.  I think there was a short live-action broadcast in Wall-E as well, but again, 99% of the film is CG.  Dinosaur, Happy Feet, and Wall-E should all be in the main list.
Maybe there could be a Direct-To-Video section as well. Otherwise, I'd say that direct sequels to theatrically released films could be included in the main list (e.g., Open Season 2-3, Happily N'Ever After 2.)  At the same time, cheap direct-to-video titles shouldn't be in the main list, such as Chop Kick Panda (knockoff of Kung Fu Panda.)98.162.209.39 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: or it need additonal column. It can be added. 31.209.153.12 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live-action/CG hybrids, direct to video 

message: Should the film Ballerina be included in this list? I would have added it myself, but I'm a little unsure how to go about it: it has been released in Canada and France already, but it will be re-released in USA in August 2017 under an alternative name, Leap!. What do you think?
TheFinkie (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add it under the original title and release date. Trivialist (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballerina/Leap! 

message: Should any computer-animated film marked TBA be added to the 'Upcoming films' list, or are only films with announced release dates allowed?  —Sir Beluga 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's only "TBA," it probably hasn't entered production yet, so I would say no. Trivialist (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming films: TBA films 

message: When you try to sort the tables by date of release, it's not possible due to the syntax used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y5GR (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  These tables aren't chronologically unsortable 

message: Here's the thing: I would like to change the title. I am in the process of making an article of all films that are partially or fully computer-animated. This means that Encanto and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 are now going to be in the same list, because both Mirabel Madrigal and Sonic the Hedgehog are computer-animated. Maybe we should change the title to List of fully computer-animated films. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change