Talk:Lists of animated feature films

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

A couple of links[edit]

A list of theatrical releases in USA: http://www.cartoonresearch.com/feature.html Of course this is when they were released in USA, the original release dates may be different. Another source to some more titles: http://www.toonarific.com/article.php?id=11 Still, a double check of the year and titles by comparing it with imdb and such would be wise (even if imdb isn't always 100% accurate either). And an interesting qoute from the net; "According to a recent survey written by Tim Westcott and published by CARTOON, 182 full-length animated films were produced and released in Europe between 1926 and 2001. Some 56 were released between 1997 and 2001 alone; another 34 films are currently in production or about to be released." If these also includes independent films or just theatrical releases, I don't know, but he probably means animated features in general. Too bad the list is not available on the net. At least not for the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhynchosaur (talk • contribs) 05:25, 31 May 2006.

Also, The Russian wikipedia has a usefull list of animated films by year. [1] I'm going through it now and picking out the feature-length ones. They also have lists of animated films by country, by genre, etc. Esn 04:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Gil-Dong and Killer Spy[edit]

Hong Gil-Dong was the first animated feature from Korea, and seems to be lost forever; http://www.koreanfilm.org/ani-history2.html , http://www.awn.com/mag/issue1.11/articles/park1.11.html and http://www.fpsmagazine.com/feature/031016korean.php As for Killer Spy, it looks like I looked at the wrong title. I was referring to an animated feature from 1953 kalled La Tour Prends Garde, which also is the name for another non-animated movie (which is kalled Killer Spy). The correct one is Bonjour Paris / "La Tour Prends Garde" http://www2.iastate.edu/~rllew/chronol-1953.html and http://www.brianlemay.com/history/timeline1951-1960.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhynchosaur (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 May 2006.

You are, of course, correct - I checked it out before I saw this message and saw that I was wrong for deleting it. It's sad that it seems to be lost, though. By the way, could you sign your name/date by using four tildes next time you post? Like this: "~ ~ ~ ~" but without the spaces. Esn 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Animatrix[edit]

I don't think that this should be included because it was never released theatrically in this way and I don't think it has bridging sequences in between the various shorts. If we included it, we'd have to include pretty much every DVD collection of animated short films in this list, which would seem a little pointless (there are TONS of them out there and many have only a slightly different collection of films). Of course, Disney's Fantasia is a feature film... I guess the difference is that a) it was released theatrically and b) it has bridging sequences. It's a tricky thing, of course. Any comments? Esn 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the shorts are released for the first time ever in a collection on the cinema, on video or on TV, then if would probably be a feature. If they have been released independently before this, and not shown fused together as a theatrical release, then it is not a feature. Just my opinion. I don't know what Animatrix is, all I have seen are the video version. An by the way, maybe the movie Heaven and Earth Magic from 1963 is the first feature of its kind, as it seems to be painted directly on the film. But I don't know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.36.170 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 June 2006.
Go ahead and put it in, and add a question mark beside it (?). It'll enourage others to fact-check it, perhaps. :) I'm not sure if it's acceptable by Wiki policy to do that, but they say to "be bold", don't they? Esn 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, I think I will wait and think about it some time. 193.216.121.100 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this page says that he used cutout animation... the white forms on black that you can see in the screenshots are probably because he exposed the film in a non-conventional way and inverted the colours. That's my guess, anyway. Esn 23:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible inclusions[edit]

This is a list of films that I'm not sure about... likely because there isn't a lot of info available. It's just a reference: if anyone has any info about them (whether they should be on the list or not), please say so. This list will grow and shrink with time and circumstances... feel free to add your own films to it or comment on any of the individual films. Esn 07:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Master of Existence (Vlastelin byta, USSR 1932), Alexander Ptushko - puppet animation. Some websites say that this is a feature film (such as this one and this one, while others say that it's a short. None of them say exactly how long it is.
  • The Argonauts (USSR 1936) by Vladimir Mudgiri - drawn animation (?)
  • The Seven Ravens (Sieben Raben, Germany 1937) - it seems to be 50-55 minutes long, but some websites mention a film with the same name and by the same people being made in 1953. Others say 1937, and yet others say that two films (one in 1937 and one in 1953) were made. What's going on here?
  • The Golden Key (Золотой Ключик, Zolotoy Klyuchik, USSR 1939) - seems to be a combination of puppet animation and live-action, but I don't know how much animation there is.

How to name films with originally non-English titles[edit]

I think I just realized a very nice way to do this. Since this is an English encyclopedia, I still think that the English name (or the English translation) should be listed first. However, I realize that in many cases (such as in those where there are no English websites about the film) it would be more usefull to know the name in the original language. So here's what I propose:

The main title is still the English one, but right after that in small letters we can have the foreign-language title. You can make the words small by doing this: "< small > text </ small >" (without the spaces).

I'll start implementing this right away, since it seems to be a very good idea to me. If anyone has any objections, please say so. Esn 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An animated film done by one person.[edit]

I read in an alternate version of this page that there was an animated film done entirely by one person. What was it called? --69.253.15.246 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found it. It's Drawn From Memory (1995) by Paul Fierlinger. --A 583th User (Talk to me! Thank you!) 5:29 P.M., 1 Sept. 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's still on this page, so I don't know what you mean by "an alternate version"... :P Another one-person feature film that's currently being created (and will probably be finished around 2007) is Minushi - see Minushi.com. Nim's Journey is also one, but it's taking a lot longer to produce and its release date is more uncertain. Esn 23:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet-only feature films[edit]

"Rough Science Boys: The Movie" was recently added to the 2007 section with the note "will debut on You Tube and Google Video". Although it was added by a user using an anonymous IP address, I'm pretty sure that the person who added it was in fact IKR1.

Now, on the one hand, I'm not sure if we should discriminate based on the medium that an animated feature-length film is released into. Internet-only feature films might be the wave of the future (give it 5 years or so, I'd say). On the other hand, this editor has had a bad history of submitting non-notable information and advertising his own films and websites. Furthermore, there is NO verifiable information about the film anywhere on the internet, and very few pages that even mention it (just one almost-empty youtube link and a few wikipedia/wikipedia clone articles). There is also nothing to suggest that the film is feature-length.

Because of these factors, I'm removing the film from the list until there's some credible information that it is in fact being released in 2007 and will be feature-length.

If it does get released, though, and IS feature-length, I'm not sure on the best course of action. On the one hand, there is in theory nothing to prevent an internet-only feature film from being comparable in quality to some of the one-person-feature-films being released through theatres/DVDs that are mentioned in the topic above. On the other hand, we could be bombarded with longer versions of Demented Cartoon Movies. What do the rest of you think? -Esn 04:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Die sieben Raben and El Apostel[edit]

From a discussion board (http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=28&topic_id=2733&mesg_id=2733&page=2):

"The dvd “Die shonsten Marchen” contains three short films (12, 20 , and 25 minutes). “Die sieben Raben” contains one long film (53 mins) and some minor extras. Dates given on the insert are as follows… 1936 – Tischlein deck Dich (Table be Set) 1937 – Die sieben Raben (The Seven Ravens) 1940 – Der gestiefelte Kater (Puss in Boots) 1943 – Dornroschen (Hawthorn Blossom)"

In other words, Die sieben Raben is 53 mijutes long. Also mentioned other places, as here; "Die sieben Raben / Regie: Gebrüder Diehl. - [VHS] (53 Min.) : s/w Deutschland 1937 V 97/505 (http://www.hff-potsdam.de/fileadmin/hff/bibliothek/neuerwerbungen/neu0897.pdf).

When it comes to El Apostel, I'm not sure if it really is 70 minutes. Taken for the article found on http://www.milestonefilms.com/pdf/AchmedPK.pdf :

"El Apostel premiered on 9 Nov. 1917. However, its status as the first feature length animated film is uncertain, as this claim relies primarily on the memory of animator Quirino Cristani. A subsequent Argentinian film called Sin dejar rastros(1918) has a similar claim as first feature length animated film, but this was only shown for one day before being confiscated by the government. Without physical evidence or more compelling documentary evidence, it is difficult to say whether these were actually features, or something more along the line of O'Brien's The Ghost of Slumber Mountain. A Bray Studio production, Elements of the Automobile, was a 12 reel entirely animated production that predates these efforts. However, it was meant as an educational series to be projected in 12 different "chapters" and the film was padded with re-cycling of the animation. In general, the jury is out as far as the question of what was the first feature length animated film.

In 1926, Lotte Reiniger wrote that she used 100,000 single frames for her film; shooting about 250,000 frames. This is one of the reasons I am skeptical about the claim on behalf of El Apostel, as it is reputed to have been 50,000 frames long. But it isn't impossible that it was padded, as was the case with Elements of the Automobile. I'm not convinced by the evidence that one can dismiss Reiniger's film from the running."

(Two films of Max and Dave Fleischer are also mentioned; The Einstein Theory of Relativity and Evolution, but the first was only partly animated, and the second too short according to imdb.)

Since none of the animated features by Quirino Cristani have survived, it is hard to say how long they were. At least it is safe to say that Die Abenteuer des Prinzen Achmed is the oldest surviving feature (UK could have produced the second oldest surviving feature. Quotes from an article; "Anson Dyer's The Story of the Flag (1927) would have been Britain's first feature-length animated film, about an hour long, but producer Archibald Nettlefold lost confidence, and it was finally issued as six short films. The use of colour processes in British animation was constrained by the fact that Disney had a monopoly on the use of three-colour Technicolor until 1934. Thus, although systems such as Dunning Colour were employed in the early part of the decade, the first three-colour British animated film, Fox Hunt (running time?), by Anthony Gross and Hector Hoppin, didn't appear until 1935.") 217.68.114.116 10:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that "The Seven Ravens" is 53 minutes long. However, that falls within the definition of being a feature film. Esn 11:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any Ray gunn rumors?[edit]

You seem to know a lot about animation, will Brad Bird make-

ray gunn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.104.42.76 (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Estonian film?[edit]

A user recently added this 1931 Estonian film, but I can find no evidence suggesting that it was feature-length. Esn 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition[edit]

I've recently started adding some links beside films which have no wikipedia articles - to save a reader from searching for them himself, because sometimes they are hard to find. I'm trying to include the link that best describes the film. Does anyone object to this? Esn 11:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring discrepancy between the title and the lead[edit]

Hasn't anyone else noticed the glaring discrepancy between the title and the lead sentence? The title says that this is a "list of animated feature films," while the lead says it is a "list of animated feature-length films ... as well as made-for-TV and direct-to-video movies." I know it wasn't there originally. It was added in this diff. I would recommend sticking with animated feature films, but since I'm not a regular editor on this article, I'll semi-recuse myself — Iamunknown 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the edit was accepted by all of the regular contributors at the time and still is - in fact, while the article wasn't renamed, this has for quite some time been the "list of animated feature-length films" - this is what the introduction says, actually. Perhaps should be moved to that title now? The edit is from May 26 of last year, by the way - just two days after this article was created by myself, and the change was mainly necessary because I didn't really understand the exact definition of a "feature film" at first; it was always meant to include feature-length films from the start.
I don't think excluding all but theatrically-released films would be a good idea now - I think the primary reason that everyone agreed to the change is that there is no fundamental difference between an animated film which happened to have been released in theatres and one which wasn't. In some countries (eg. USSR) very few of the feature-length films that were made were actually released into theatres, yet they were widely shown on television and are considered to be classics in their countries. Esn 09:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. My ignorance the matter is also glaringly apparent. :D If this list is a list of animated feature-length films, then I am totally fine with that. In fact, I like that it allows for more foreign animated films to be on the list, given that not all animated feature-length foreign films are released as feature films. But I would support a move to list of animated feature-length films. Then the lead sentence could be tidied up — right now the sentence construction is rather awkward. Thanks for clarifying, Esn — Iamunknown 17:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not sure how the opening paragraph could be made better, though - do you have a suggestion? What exactly is awkward? Esn 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Okay, I'll try my best at a peer review of sorts. I will state suggestions directly and not say "Consider..." or "You may want to...."

  1. Delink feature-length films. It (the link to feature films) is misleading. This list is not limited to feature films.
  2. Tighten the lead sentence. The qualifiers alphabetical and chronological might be used as "This is a chronological, alphabetical list of animated feature-length films from around the world."
    • At any rate, chronologically by year is redundant.
  3. Start a new sentence with "theatrical releases as well as made-for-TV and direct-to-video movies." While the semi-colon may technically be correct, it drags the sentence out.
  4. First state which standards this list uses (BFI's, AMPAS's and AFI's), and then apologize for why it is not using the Academy standards.
    • Source the movie associations' standards.
  5. Move "For marionette films ... please look here instead" to a hatnote.

I hope that is a good start. It considerably shortens and tightens the lead, which was my intention, and can be used as a solid foundation for adding more information therein. Cheers, Iamunknown 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I find the variable register to be visually displeasing. I know it would be tedious, and I'm not sure how it would work with the earlier years that have only a few films listed, but I would recommend merging the content into a table with fixed cell widths — Iamunknown 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses:
1) Ok, I'll link "feature" to "feature film" instead. I feel that this link must be there in the introduction somewhere.
2) A list cannot be fully alphabetical and chronological at the same time, and "chronologically by year" is not redundant. A trully chronological list would be by day of release, whereas this list is alphabetical under the years, and chronological otherwise. EDIT: Ah, I think the correct way to say it would be "alphabetically by year"! Good catch.
3) Well, perhaps this is a case of American grammar's documented aversion to using semi-colons in any form... I wasn't brought up in American grammar, so to me it seems that starting a sentence at that point would be artificial because it's a continuation of the previous one; it does not present a wholly new idea.
4) I agree on this point (actually, AMPAS is the Academy. For some reason, their official definition of "feature film" differs from their guidelines for what they will give the Academy Award to).
5)I'm not sure what a hatnote is...
Addendum: I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you show me an example before we consider changing the article?
Another note: I noticed that you added the nihongo template to Princess Mononoke. I don't think this would work well for the article - I believe it is best here that the foreign-language names be small so that they don't take up too much space (why, you ask? Well, just look at some of the Japanese names; they're insanely long! Writing out both the foreign-language and English transliteration names, as I have commited to doing here to make things easier for the reader, would take up too much space if the text wasn't small.) Esn 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the very delayed reply.
  1. The link on the former half of "feature-length" is still unsettling, though I definitely understand the need for a definition. Thoughts: Is there a strict definition of "feature-length" (i.e. 40 minutes) and enough encyclopaedic information to justify creating a new article? Or maybe the definition (synthesized by the definitions of the BFI, AMPAS, and AFI, but not the AMBAF) could be given as a footnote. Or is it even needed since the definition is provided in the next paragraph?
  2. I see your point. I think the solution is excellent.
  3. I am always worried about using semi-colons correctly. I admit I am never sure if my understanding of their usage is correct or not.
  4. (space)
  5. See Wikipedia:Hatnotes. I think it is appropriate, as is currently done in the lead, to direct readers elsewhere for marionette films, but I think it would be more appropriate to direct them using a hatnote. That way, they would see it immediately.
  6. An example regarding register from the bottom of 1980...
English title Foreign title Country
The Thralls' Kids(?) Trællenes Børn Denmark
Toward the Terra Japan
Twelve Months 世界名作童話 森は生きている, Двенадцать месяцев Japan/USSR
Yogi's First Christmas USA
6. (Cont'd.) Thus the register of the text is even. That is, the text of each cell starts at the the text of the cell directly above it. Also, the tables could be sortable using class=sortable. I am unsure how it would affect the films with longer titles, and would encouarge testing it using a sample of data entries on a non-live sub-page. I would be willing to help out if you are interested.
Finally, I understand that to include the foreign title, you need to make it the titles small. Italicising them, however, is a tricky situation. Italics are a foreign property to East-Asian typography, and some character sets render them incorrectly. I know that italics are the English-language standard by which we denote titles, but maybe we could denote titles by the standard of those countries using East-Asian character sets. Whatever that standard is, I would have to do research to find out. --Iamunknown 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm guessing that this edit by SkyWalker (who didn't bother to say anything on this talk page) was due to this unanswered suggestion from over a year ago. I'm really sorry to have forgotten about this. On to the first issue: I really am not sure about the italics/no-italics debate; italics are currently used to differentiate the original title from the transliteration of that title. This applies to all languages and character sets. I guess it would be possible to apply it to all character sets except ones which are not italicized, but I personally feel that this would make things needlessly complex; after all, nobody can read Chinese characters when they are in tiny font, anyway. The main point of their being there is not to be read, but so somebody can either search for them on this page using "ctrl+f", or (in case there is no article about a film) copy+paste them and search for more information on, for example, a search engine.
Regarding the reason for this being a list rather than a table, the main reason is that there is much more information here than in, for example, this article. That article has less than 100 films in it because the criteria for inclusion are far more strict. If this article were made into a gigantic table, it would not only balloon the file size, it would also make navigation very difficult. The special TOC templates in this article currently allow a reader to, within a few mouse clicks, navigate to a specific decade and year with no need for scrolling. If it were a table, you would need to do a lot of scrolling, and the article would take up so much vertical space that this would be very inconvenient. Esn (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have not checked the talk page. I have added the table template because the article look messy and not clear. By adding the table the article would look beautiful, easy to read, sortable and it would help everyone. Here is my idea of the table:-

Release year English Title Foreign title Country Notes
2009 Alice's Birthday День рождения Алисы (Den rozhdeniya Alisy) Russia
2009 Astro Boy - Japan/USA

Or
==2009==

English Title Foreign title Country Notes
Alice's Birthday День рождения Алисы (Den rozhdeniya Alisy) Russia
Astro Boy - Japan/USA

Well if the table is implemented. I would be glad to help. It after all everyone effort that we can improve the article. Please don't wait for more that 1 month to decide weather to implement this or not. Please decide this quickly. The article is indeed need of tables.--SkyWalker (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the concerns which I outlined above? If "beauty" is the only benefit, and it comes at the cost of making navigation more difficult, I frankly do not think it's worth it. Esn (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think table can cause any problem with navigation. There are lot of advantages of adding tables. I think it would be worth it. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, please reply to my concerns a little further up the page. To save scrolling effort, I will copy them here...
Regarding the reason for this being a list rather than a table, the main reason is that there is much more information here than in, for example, this article. That article has less than 100 films in it because the criteria for inclusion are far more strict. If this article were made into a gigantic table, it would not only balloon the file size, it would also make navigation very difficult. The special TOC templates in this article currently allow a reader to, within a few mouse clicks, navigate to a specific decade and year with no need for scrolling. If it were a table, you would need to do a lot of scrolling, and the article would take up so much vertical space that this would be very inconvenient.
Also, as you can see in that article, the table makes each film take up 2-3 times more vertical space than they do in list form. Tables are an excellent thing for lists that are fairly short, but not very good I think for lists with a thousand or more items.
Consider also how one would edit such a huge table! Right now, you can edit each year individually. If this were a table, you would always need to edit the entire page to add a film. It would be an editing nightmare! Esn (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this for while now. I guess you are correct Esn. The table can look good but it also has it's disadvantages. Also the article need to be cleanup. There are some entries which was released on 2008 is in upcoming section. This need to be taking care of. Also it needs to be updated often to add new entries. I don't where this new animation info gets released. Do you know Esn?. I also would like to help. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which films which were already released are in the "upcoming" section? I didn't notice any when I checked a week or two ago, but if you see any, feel free to move them. As for where I find information, basically from all over the place. For example, I might check the IMDB page of a director of a film on the list and see if he has any other films which aren't on this list. Also from forums, blogs, etc. (though I try to find reliable sources before I add them to the list). There are also a bunch of "External links" at the bottom of this article which I've found useful to check every so often. Esn (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... one more thing. Don't always trust the IMDB release dates. Sometimes movies get postponed from their original dates, and IMDB doesn't update. For example, IMDB currently says that Plumíferos was released on January 10, 2008. The official website, meanwhile, says that "premiere dates are still undefined". Esn (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that tables would work, because the webpage is already too long. Even making puting 2 colums would make it better to read. Lama12 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave the Barbarian[edit]

Is there a source that there's going to be be a Dave the Barbarian movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.199.59 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Swans (1985)[edit]

Why is there no information about this movie? [2] [3] But it was probably made in USA, even if we can't say for sure yet. 193.217.195.91 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Swans IS listed under 1985 already, if that's what you mean. If you mean why it doesn't have an article - there are dozens and dozens of films here without an article, not just Swans. It just means that nobody's gotten around to writing one. You can write one yourself if you want - just click on this link and start writing. You can use one of the other film articles as a template. Esn 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. I was referring to the internet in generel, not Wikipedia. There seems to be almost no information at all about it. Which I think is a little odd. Which is the reason why there is an question behind it if it is made in USA or not. 193.217.193.118 16:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is rather odd. I really don't know. It probably had a very limited release. Have you seen the film? Esn 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, so far just the cover. I can imagine there is some with an even more limited release, and which for that reason is perhaps not even metioned on the net. If I ever comes over it as a second hand buy, I will miht see it. 193.217.195.90 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ojamajo doremi[edit]

Ojamajo doremi movies should be addded to this list, it is the most popular magical girl show in japan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.58.164 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 March 2007

From the information I've seen, I gather that they're not eligible because they're less than 40 minutes long. Esn 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more?[edit]

There is little info about them, but they probably fit in on the list:

Irina Efteeva: Eliksir [The Elixir] 1995, 45 minutes


Andrei Khrzhanovskii (Andrey Khrzhanovskiy): Liubimoe moe vremia [My Favourite Time] 1987, 70 minutes, in Russian

Hermína Týrlová: Ferda Mravenec. Jak se mel Ferda ve svete a prihody brouka Pytilka [Ferda the Ant. How Ferda Lived in the World and Stories about his Friend Little Back] 1978, 60 minutes

Link: [4] 193.217.192.144 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! Andrei's film is already on here, I believe, but the others are not. Good find! And what an amazing list of things are on that site... some stuff is practically impossible to find (unless you live in Moscow - which I don't - and can attend some screenings that sometimes happen). The "Bazar" section from Mikhail Tsekhanovskii's unfinished feature film is considered somewhat of a classic. Esn 11:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone remember these?[edit]

Little Greyneck[edit]

I saw this on TV in the early '50's. The title character is a young quail who is prevented from flying south for the winter because of an injured wing. Throughout the winter, she is menaced by a fox. Little Greyneck has a friend (a bird or animal, I forget what kind) who keeps saying, "My heart beats for you, Little Greyneck." Eventually, as spring approaches, the fox chases Greyneck over some ice floes on a river. Greyneck's wing is now sufficiently healed for her to fly between two of them. The fox, not realizing this, attempts to jump between floes, falls into the water and drowns. At the happy ending, Greyneck's friend says, "There goes my heart again." (Too bad the fox didn't go after her instead.) When was this made and by whom?

Found it! (see http://www.animator.ru/db/?ver=eng&p=show_film&fid=2974). It was made in Russia in 1948. The title character is a duck, not a quail. This is in the public domain and can be downloaded from http://niffiwan.livejournal.com/5346.html. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While a wonderful film (and thanks for linking to my blog :), it doesn't fall under the criteria set here, so I removed it from the list. Esn (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tinderbox[edit]

An elaborate and reasonably faithful retelling of Andersen's fairy tale. This one is either British or British-dubbed. At the wedding of the soldier and the princess, Mendelssohn's Wedding March is played on the organ.

Kostaki mou 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be it: [5]. Although at 35 minutes, it's also not eligible for the list. Esn (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It couldn't possibly be it. The one I'm thinking of couldn't be later than the early '60's and is probably older still. Kostaki mou (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Factual Errors[edit]

Under First in Techniques it listed the Black Cauldron in 1985 as the first to use computer generated imagery. I am not sure which definition of computer generated imagery is being used (perhaps something more stringent?), but the movie Rock and Rule from 1983 had computer generated elements according to the director's commentary. I recently viewed this DVD and was surprised that some of the computer effects (and a computer "character") were in fact done by computer because I had assumed it was all done by hand. In addition I noticed while watching Heavy Metal (just before this research trip) that there was a scene in that movie that might have been done with computer vector graphics. I cannot verify it though because I have the Superbit version without any commentaries or documentaries. Heavy Metal is an even earlier film. I haven't seen The Black Cauldron in a long time so I don't even recall what might have been done in that movie with computers but I trust that something must have been for it to garner the note. In any case the use in Rock and Rule jumped out at me and the Director mentions several other firsts for technique in the commentary. Anyone found anything earlier yet? -Alex S 12:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Revised Alex S 67.87.244.140 (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Lou's Son and possible other lost films[edit]

Marie Lou's Son was recently listed on the list as the first animated feature film over Quirino Cristiani's El Apostol. With much research online and several of my books on the film history of animation no reference has been made of it. The film, directed by a Gerard Francois Garnett from Haiti is quite mysterious. In fact I am beginning to think about its exsistence. Could it have been made up? To This point with little info on it it could be, but there is also the possibility that it was recently discovered I'm not sure at the moment but it seems likely. Other films of intrest are

  • Peludopolis (Argentina)
  • Hong Gildong (Korea)
  • Die Sieben Raben (Germany)
  • El Apostol (Argentina)
  • Train Arrival (Russia)
  • Kutsu Juku- seiklusi (Estonia)

and Little Red Riding Hood Directed by Walt Disney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasisgood! (talk • contribs) 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 upcoming section should probably be cleaned up[edit]

Seeing as how it's mid-December and the "upcoming" section for 2007 is still about as long as the already released section, it seems to me that something is amiss. I imagine that the majority of the films listed in the upcoming section have already come out without being moved or have been postponed to a future year. It would probably be best if someone with the proper resources to do such a check went through and moved the misplaced films to the proper sections of the article. 71.198.30.70 (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audition, 오디션 (South Korea)[edit]

I'm not sure if this film was released or is still in production. Anyone speak Korean? Esn (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown title[edit]

Alright when I was a kid I saw a movie where a kid is playing with a toy on Earth but it breaks, so he gives it to his dad to fix, but the Earth is about to explode and he gets separated from his dad as he goes onto one space ship and his dad on another. Then at the end of the movie he finds his dad's ship and it has his fixed toy along with the DNA of every species on Planet Earth, and him and his girlfriend decide to make New Earth. Most likely somewhere in the 1990s. Help endlessly appreciated. 76.16.188.239 (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer can be found here. 76.16.188.239 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's Titan A.E. Esn (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful movie. Watched it around 13 times. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugioh 2: Gekjiko-ban[edit]

  • This has been on the list for months with no source whatsoever. The YGO community pretty much acknowledges this is a hoax. It's not even properly romanized Japanese. Please provide a reliable source for this or I will remove it. JuJube (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE LIST[edit]

Great list, but could hv beeb adjusted, by countries also, say, the year, then the country, he n any special award... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.143.236 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press ctrl+f (or option+f if you're using a Mac) on your keyboard, type in the country, and keep pressing "next". That's an easy way to find all films by country. Making the whole list into a sortable table is impractical for such a long list, as was discussed previously, because it would come at the cost of quick navigation. Esn (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez...[edit]

You take a break for a few months and a bunch of crap and vandalism piles up... Esn (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown release date"[edit]

This section's title is misleading, since it seems to mostly include upcoming films without an officially announced release date. It should therefore either be renamed or split into two sections, one for upcoming films and another for released films whose release date truly is unknown. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: As it is under the "upcoming films" subsection, it includes only upcoming films without an officially announced release date. There is no confusion. Released films with an "unknown release date" simply do not exist here. Esn (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there is no confusion: if that was the case, I wouldn't have started this thread. I am not a careless reader; if it was obvious, I wouldn't have missed it. Even if there are no released films with an unknown release date (which I would disagree with anyways), the section should still be renamed to clarify that the films listed do not have an officially announced release date, or at the least, an explanatory note should be written. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish. I still think that it's pretty obvious, considering that it's under the "upcoming films" subsection. I don't know of any released animated features with an unknown release date. At least the year is always known. Esn (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better, thanks (although I am curious why you went back to "Unknown release date" and used an explanatory note? IMHO, the new section name was much clearer...). And I wouldn't be surprised if there was something in Category:Anime (year of release missing), although I've never looked through it in detail, so all the articles there could be in reference to series or upcoming films. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because "unannounced release date" isn't accurate either; quite often, a release date is announced but turns out to be inaccurate. If people still seem to be working on the film, it is moved into that section. So it is more accurate to say "unknown". Esn (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated feature-length films[edit]

"In order to qualify for this list, films must be "over 40 minutes long and have animation in at least 75% of their running time, or have at least 40 minutes of animation in total." Although general definition of feature film is 70 min, they must include all new stories and animation if they are package films. Package films including little or fewer than 10% of new animation are not included. Stop-motion, cutout and silhouette animation are included on separate list because of the reason they does not use traditional drawings cell progress of animation. Computer animation is not included ether it can be flash (in 2-D), CGI and 3-D progress.

For marionette films and/or films featuring non-animated puppets, see Films featuring puppetry. For package/compalition films with little or no new animation see list of package films. For list of films featuring stop-motion animation see List of stop-motion films. For list of films featuring computer animation see List of computer-animated films."

This is the citria I would use for the list and I would remove stop-motion films from the list as they have already seprate article as would i do with computer films as they are not drawned by the hands as then I think the list would be lot a clearer to pepole. and move would be go also and cal it a List of tradidional animated feature-length films and yes I would use table. Sepration of decade would be good also. 1900-1950s, 1960s,-1980s 1990s, 2000s, DoctorHver (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my reply:

1) "Although general definition of feature film is 70 min". What is "general definition"? Look at the feature film article, and you will see that there's no such thing as a "general definition". Why do you think that this is better than the current introduction?

2) "Package films including little or fewer than 10% of new animation are not included." Why the change? I don't think this is a good idea, as this would remove some of the films in the official Disney features canon, for example The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.

3) I think you misunderstand the purpose of this list. This is a List of animated feature-length films. That includes all forms of animation. It seems to me that what you're looking for is a List of traditionally-animated feature-length films. You are welcome to start that article.

4) Concerning tables, this was discussed earlier on the page, but I'll mention it again here. The main reason for why this article is a list rather than a table is that there is much more information here than in, for example, the List of computer-animated films. That article has less than 100 films in it because the criteria for inclusion are far more strict. If this article were made into a gigantic table, it would balloon the file size and make navigation very difficult. The special TOC templates in this article currently allow a reader to, within a few mouse clicks, navigate to a specific decade and year with no need for scrolling. If it were a table, you would need to do a lot of scrolling, and the article would take up so much vertical space that this would be very inconvenient. Perhaps even more importantly, making this into a table would make it extremely difficult to edit the article, because you would not be able to edit a specific section but would have to always edit the whole page at once. This is very impractical and difficult, and would discourage anyone from editing it.

Final note: Ignore all rules is a policy. However, so is consensus, and it seems to me that by boldly making these unilateral changes, you were ignoring that last one. Consensus-building is not a rule to be ignored, it is a policy. Esn (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, regarding your suggestion to split the article into 5 articles, I don't see why this is necessary. Wikipedia:Article size does suggest that articles over 400kb should be split, but currently this article is only 170kb, and what's more, it is easy to navigate and easy to edit. If the article were split up, its usefulness would be diminished (because it would be harder to find information in it, for example by pressing ctrl+f and searching for the films of a certain country) and harder to edit it (simply, more clicks that before). Esn (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about?[edit]

How about you include whether the individual films listed were released in theatres, or sent straight to home video, or made-for-TV? It would be quite useful. 207.255.127.59 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that this should be "theatrically-released animated films" rather than "feature length". One infers the other. If we need to specify, then the article can be renamed appropriately. SpikeJones (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White was not first[edit]

In the "firsts" section, it lists Snow White as being the first use of technicolor. This is misleading, as we need to consider "theatrically released animation" that Flowers and Trees was the first to use technicolor, even if Snow White was the first feature-length piece to do so. Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Snow White, most or even all entries on the firsts list were probably preceded by short films. But since this article is about feature-length films I don't think that information belongs here. Smetanahue (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the first technicolor feature length animated film, but it did not win an Oscar for the use of color; it won the oscar for being the feature length. Color was already in place at that time. It should probably be yanked as a misleading statement. SpikeJones (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian tail[edit]

I have a question can anyone post on this website on what year will elysian tail be expected to be relesed on video. I can't wait for that date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.216.95 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Mono Relojero[edit]

Was this really a feature length film? This Wikipedia article as well as the entry in the IMDB says it was only a short film. --62.178.146.211 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with recent edits?[edit]

This set of edits by 76.253.57.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appear problematic. "Two-Gun Mickey", for instance, listed under 1934, is a short, not a feature-length film. I don't know about all the others the user added. In addition, several of them (like Camping Out) are not properly disambiguated (there was also a Mickey Mouse short named "Camping Out", released in 1934, so I assume that's what the IP meant). I'm not sure how many of these edits are valid and how many are not -- request some help sorting them out. Powers T 15:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be protected?[edit]

Right, in the upcoming films section I've noticed that several unregistered people have put in unconfirmed films such as The Magic Roundabout 2, on The Magic Roundabout '1's page, there's been no confirmation of that. And I noticed that another unregistered put in Spore for 2012, but there's no confirmation of that again either. Should this page get protected for a while because of people adding unconfirmed films, but make the protection not-too-long? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there'd be little point; the problem you describe is an ongoing one that won't be solved by temporary protection. Powers T 15:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romania[edit]

"1927: Romania, "Haplea" (the first ever Romanian animated movie was actually created in 1920, and was named "Păcală în Lună" but has not survived until today)" - The Romanian Wiki says that Haplea only had 300 meters. I also wasn't able to find a source which says that Pacala in Luna was an animated feature film. Does anyone knows more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.146.211 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link[edit]

The link behind Go to Hell! (Australia) leads to the article about Beyound Hell, a studio album by rock band GWAR. Surely, this article isn't supposed to be linked to, right? White rotten rabbit (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong date[edit]

" Technotise - Edit & I " was made and screened first time in 2009 . not 2010 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.198.114 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal[edit]

I guess anybody can see that the list is getting pretty long (193kb at the time of my writing), and in my eyes it is on the verge of being unnavigable (looking like a wall of words, and all). So I am proposing a split, maybe in the way the other film-lists were divided (by decade that is), or by region (if people here prefer that). That should make navigation a lot easier and is also a chance to create something that includes more information than the current layout. Anyway, no matter the how, but splitting the page to me seems very very necessary. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Nobody having an opinion about that? I know there are a few contributors who do a lot of editing here, and the last thing I'd want to do is to piss them off by doing a complete overhaul of the list they do not approve of. So, I'd appreciate some comments on the topic, but if nobody bothers enough to leave even a little note within the next week or two I assume that my suggestion is accepted overall and I'll simply go ahead with it. Though the work will take a while due to the length of the list an I will probably create a big mess before it will get any better, so a few helping hands would be more than welcome to get the article into shape. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No objections? Well, then ... (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi! I agree that a split is a good idea. I know it has been discussed in the past, though I can't find that discussion right now. Anyway, I remember that the result from it was that opinions differed, and as a compromise, split lists were created by one user as parallel alternatives to this list. Those lists can be found here. So the split versions already exist, though it seems like this one still is the best updated, and I do not know if those who opposed a complete split (turning this page merely into a list of links to the other lists) have changed their minds or not. Smetanahue (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or now I'm getting unsure, I might be confusing it with this discussion which prompted a user to create a separate list for "traditional" animation (I assume he meant cel animation), but at the same time the technique-neutral split lists do exist. Hm. Anyway I still support a full split, but I recommend you to contact regular contributors and WP:ANIMATION and ask for their opinions. Smetanahue (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how it could be of any use to keep two articles about the same topic. It's irritating and I guess there's nobody who cares enough about the subject to update one article when a new film was added to the other, so in the end both probably have entries the respective other is lacking. Having to do the same work twice, for what? And just look at this. Apparently the author lost interest while being only half-way through with his project. Simple copy and paste from the main list here and here. Then all of a sudden a different table used here, but also unfinished. Somebody has to do some serious work here, and I'm determined to be that one, as long as nobody gets pissy, because he wants to keep this mess at all costs. I've already finished my work for the decades up to 1960 so there is no reason to keep the unfinished article dealing with the same time span. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, turn the 10s-50s article into a redirect. About the main article, it seems like User:Esn was the most avid supporter of keeping it as one list back in 2009, so I suggest you contact him and ask where he stands today. Smetanahue (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see User:Esn was the only one arguing in favour of keeping the long list, and I find his arguments rather unconvincing. And while he created the list he hasn't made a single edit to it in the last 2 1/2 years, so I suppose he doesn't care anymore. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Woohoo, apparently I've landed in content fork-heaven. Not only do we have List of animated feature films and all those lists by decade, but also List of traditional animated feature films, which is overall a copy-and-paste of the main list with the non-traditional films edited out. And on top of that we put List of computer-animated films and List of stop motion films. That is quite a few articles that are either duplicating or overlapping each other, don't you think? (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Support what you are doing, but take all the other dublicate list that are not in the current split and redirect/delete them. I originally proposed what you are doing. But I had the argument with User:Esn back in the day, but I got boring of arguing with him but I knew his argument for support of one list was rather flawed, so I stopped editing the list for more easy looking slit up, set up. So I hoped that someone else would see my side of things and take some actions, like you are currently doing. Creator of page doesn't have any say how things can or should go with each article in the future. DoctorHver (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I was wondering, I don't suppose there is some special Wikipedia tool that would allow one to combine several different tables on the user end? What you've done by splitting the list up has merit (just like the previous state of the list had different merits), but it makes it hard to look for trends that span across several years or decades. So I was just wondering if a tool exists somewhere to combine all of the different years into one list, so that I could, for example, sort all of the years by country. Not changing anything in the actual articles, just in how I see them. Esn (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Feature-Length Clay Animated Film[edit]

I know that "The Adventures of Mark Twain" has become renowned as the first feature-length clay animation film. However, I believe that may largely be due to Will Vinton promoting it as such, but it's untrue.

"Pogo for President" was released in 1980 - five years before 'Twain' - and was entirely made from clay.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087925/

I believe this should be changed. Vinton cemented Twain as the first feature-length clay film through campaigning it to be so, but the fact is Pogo came first but was not well received and has sunk into obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.83.167 (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Articles like Pogo (comic strip)#Animation and puppetry and Walt Kelly#Legacy in print and other media also confirm that Pogo for President is indeed clay-mation feature and that it was released in 1980. --Carniolus (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First 3D Animated Feature Film[edit]

This article claims it was "Starchaser: The Legend of Orin" which was released in 1985.

However, the Australian film "Abra Cadabra" was in sterescopic 3D and released in 1983/4.

http://www.acmi.net.au/kids_abracadabra.aspx

Like the first feature-length clay animated film issue above, this needs changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.123.169 (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Films[edit]

Why are the three lost films from Argentinia mentioned in the "normal" list while there is a seperate list for "lost films"? 178.191.247.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm wondering the same. In my opinion it would make more sense to mention lost films in the normal list and only unfinished projects in this short list.178.190.198.29 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat Genres[edit]

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of animated-films. It might be useful to look at [6] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Animated Feature Film" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Animated Feature Film. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live action animated[edit]

I have started to removed live action animated films on a few pages but on one of them it was reverted and I was told go to the talk page so I decided to go to this talk page instead on doing it on loads of talk page to save the hassle My plan is to use the rule that the List of highest-grossing animated films use this would remove films like Roger Rabbit and Looney Tunes: Back in Action but films like The Lego Movie and Happy Feet would stay thoughts Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Pining names to discuss this @Pokelova:, @Maestro2016:, @Sc2353: to get this discussion started Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_animated_feature_films&oldid=1153143951"