Talk:List of Walt Disney Pictures films

1952

I believe I recall seeing mention of the upcoming film 1952 on this list, but there's nothing there anymore and I don't see anything in the history. Perhaps I'm just crazy. Any reason this may have been removed? Not sure how to add it myself, but it seems this should be added to the list.

Source: http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/brad-bird-to-helm-damon-lindelofs-secret-shrouded-script-1952-for-disney/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemaddens (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added to TBA section. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorting

Would there be a way to not use color to sort the types of movies, in accordance with the policy WP:COLOR? - Rebel shadow 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

The color-coded but sorting method was removed. It may be aesthetically pleasing, but its removal is in accordance with WP:COLOR, its apparent irrelevance and triviality (film definitions are better addressed in the films' respective articles instead of here). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COLOR there is a way on making the colors so they are colorblind friendly, I would do this myself but dont know much about it to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly that familiar with it either. Hopefully, a more knowledgeable editor will help us with the proper colors. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay and thanks for your understanding =). The colors do serve a helpful purpose here as not only are they better on the eyes but also link to the other lists through the TOC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was only against their inclusion because of the serious issue with color blind readers. As long as that's addressed, I see no real problem in keeping them (they are nice to have). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Studios?

Why the heck is Marvel Studios releases included in this list? While they are the property of The Walt Disney Company, they are not Disney-branded (Walt Disney Pictures), but merely distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures just like any Touchstone Pictures release past and present. The fact that Buena Vista Pictures Distribution changed its name in 2007 to Walt Disnet Studios Motion Pictures may be the source of the confusion and inconcistency displayed on this page. My suggestion is to either remove the Marvel films, or to include all Disneynature, Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, and Miramax Films (1993-2010). RicJac (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The subject of including Marvel Studios films (The Avengers and onward) has been an ambiguous debate. At first glance, it would make sense to exclude them because they are not Disney-branded, altough there are third-party sources that mention Walt Disney Pictures in relation to the past two released Marvel films (Ex: Entertainment Weekly, ComingSoon, Movie Web, ComingSoon, etc.) In fact, they (along with Disneynature) are classified as part of the official Walt Disney Pictures' library at their offical website whereas Touchstone, Hollywood and Miramax films are not, and that's coming from the direct source.

My suggestion, which is one I hope satisfies editors on both sides is this: Include the Disney-released Marvel Studios films and the Disneynature films here but label them appropriately under their own "Type of film" category, such as is the case for True-Life Adventures. Here's what I mean:

Key to the colors used below

	Type of film
	Animated feature films (List)
	Films with live action and animation
	Live-action films
	True-Life Adventures / Disneynature
	Documentary films
	Marvel Studios
	TBA

What do you think? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of Disneynature is sensible as it is clearly "Disney-branded" by any standard.

With respect to Marvel, it is not as easy. It appears that some of the non-Disney affiliated sites confuse WDP and WDSMP. As for Disney themselves there is a sort of historical parallel to this: in the late 80's and early 90's when several PG-rated Touchstone titles were seen as hip, modern and successful etcetera: they were often bundled together with Disney titles, as can be seen in the special "Disney, 50 years of Magic".

The list from the Disney Archives is of course equally official: but its list include features from all the labels... But as the title of this article is List of Walt Disney Pictures film, the line has to be drawn somewhere while striking a balance between an inclusionist and an exclusionist approach.

My solution would be to exclude the non-Disney-branded Marvel features from the list, but to make a note mentioning that those titles while not WDP/Disney-branded proper are included on official Disney sites with proper WDP/Disney branded titles. If future Marvel titles starts to bear the Disney name, as has been announced for the upcoming Star Wars film, then they should be included here without question. RicJac (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a well-rounded solution that I'm in full support of. Just to make sure we understand each other, the suggestion is that we have the list include only these titles: 1) Walt Disney Pictures "Disney-branded films" 2) Disneynature, 3) Any Marvel/Lucasfilm films that are Disney-branded and 4) Mention the non-Disney branded Marvel films like The Avengers. If that's so then I'll begin to make some edits. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We're in broad agreement, with the exception of the non-Disney branded Marvel Studios feature films The Avengers and Iron Man 3. What I argued for in my previous post was an inclusion of those titles in a "Notes" section due to the connection on contemporary Disney public marketing webbpages, but not in the list itself. I think it is important in an encyclopedic context on the List of Walt Disney Pictures films to make the crucial distinction between The Walt Disney Company films as in "Disney branded content" and "Non-Disney branded content", or else it opens up a slippery slope of endless discussions with no end in sight. RicJac (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did make a footnote highlighting the difference. But, you are correct. I did add them back to the list, only because I found out (while I was editing) that Thor: The Dark World was not being co-branded by Disney in the recent marketing materials, despite that it was "supposedly" going to be the first Disney-Marvel branded film. So, I figured that listing all the non-Disney branded Marvel films in a footnote would be chaotic since all future Marvel Studios productions (whether they are owned by Disney or not), will not have the Disney moniker on them at all. In other words, unless Disney's marketing changes, the footnote will just be an endless list that'll grow in time. If it were just The Avengers and Iron Man 3 as the only two non-Disney branded Marvel films, then I would have followed your suggestion down to the tee. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But having a note explaining the brand inconsistencies on the current website would not necessitate the inclusion of the Marvel titles (which as you succinctly point out, would be an ever-expanding task) in the list per se, but rather following the description of what content is not included in the list. Besides there are more inconsistencies and blurring of lines, both in the past and the present, with [Disney Movies On Demand http://www.youtube.com/user/DisneyMoviesOnDemand/videos?view=0], featuring the PG-rated Touchstone Pictures film Sister Act and the R-rated Hollywood Pictures film Deep Rising in a decidedly Disney-branded context. But I would never suggest that it makes them pseudo-Disney branded. And I don't really see the need to treat the Marvel Studios titles any differently than other non-Disney branded content, despite their current high-profile status.

I could go on with a longer list of the blurring the supposedly rigid lines of demarcation between Disney-branded and Non-Disney branded content: but my point is, ever as before, that this list should, to maintain a semblance of consistency, only list theatrical releases which openly bear the Disney name: i.e. "Walt Disney presents", "Walt Disney Productions", "Walt Disney Pictures", "Disneynature", but not non-Disney branded features which since 2007 bear the end titles credit "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures". RicJac (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The way you changed the footnote recently is fine by me. We'll leave it like that. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course 20% of people coming here will be looking for upcoming Marvel films as a part of this, e.g. looking for when Marvel films come out with respect to Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean. To suggest otherwise is lunacy. I watched Good Morning Vietnam two days ago and it had a massive Disney logo all over it - but apparently it's not on this list because it's not officially branded (or something) or maybe that's just on UK DVDs? I've only known of the Knightley "King Arthur" as Disney..? It matters because the new Star Wars films will be branded as Lucasfilm (and Bad Robot) not Disney so having those on the list and not the others is just silly. Kypzethdurron 08:13, 18th August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clear something up: According to an offical press release, the upcoming Star Wars films will be Disney-branded. They'll be released "under the Disney | Lucasfilm banner", similar to films released under the Disney·Pixar brand. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If it matters, WDP is listed as the studio on things like Amazon Instant Video.

Article Name

I'm not ~so sure that the present article name is the optimal choice; given that for the 75 years that Disney has released feature films, 45 of those were either under the name of the co-founder/public persona and later former parent company name (Walt Disney Productions); and the fact that the "Walt Disney Pictures" name seems to have recently been reduced to simply "Disney" on new feature films.

My favored option would be "List of Disney branded films". RicJac (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Recently I moved the article's name from "List of Disney theatrical feature films" to "List of Walt Disney Pictures films" for two main reasons.

1) The former name was too broad and since this article only listed films from Walt Disney Pictures, then it was misleading.

2) I moved it to parallel all the other major studio articles with their own "list of films" pages. In the case of some of those studios (Universal, Touchstone, Fox and Paramount) they've all had different names over the course of their existence, and yet all of their "list of films" pages use the current studio's name.

As for the recent truncation from "Walt Disney Pictures" to "Disney", I believe that's a marketing strategy Disney is employing now, since the company is so hellbent with branding their products nowadays. It might also explain why such a move took two years to be completely realized. At first, it was just the Disney moniker above the film's title that was changed (beginning with Alice in Wonderland), then the opening logo was altered (The Muppets) and finally the poster and on-screen credits were shortened (John Carter). All this occurred while no announcement was made that the company was changing the legal name. Also, the logo found on their home media packaging was changed from "Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment" to read simply as "Disney", despite that not being the division's legal name. All of this has led me to believe that it's all just corporate marketing, therefore we would have to find more verifiable sources on that matter if we do decide to follow that path. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

First, legal names rarely conform to marketing as there is a thing called trademarks and fictitious business names. By the way, the actual name of the home entertainment subsidiary is still Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.

Second, my proposal is not meant to emulate the current marketing voodoo heralded out from the hallowed halls in Burbank, but rather to trim down to what is the essential ingredient from 1938 to the present-day: the Disney name (or brand, label, banner etc.) and the unique connotations (for better or worse) that accompanies it. "Walt Disney Pictures" is nothing more than a 1983 creation which has recently fallen into disuse as a brand for new theatrical releases, apart from remaining the legal name of a subsidiary, analogous to the BVHE example above. It makes little sense to use a name which is neither in current use nor representative for a even a majority of the time period covered. RicJac (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, they have been generically using the 'Disney' moniker lately on everything though. -- Rebel shadow 22:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Slightly on topic, any thoughts on renaming the List of Disney theatrical animated features page? -- Rebel shadow 23:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This article should be renamed (or change the list to the films made by this unit) as it does not conform to Walt Disney Pictures films, which is Disney Studio's family live action unit started in 1950, renamed in 1983 to Walt Disney Pictures then incorporated. (Of course other live action units were formed for more adult fare and to increase output: Touchstone, Buena Vista, Hollywood, Caravan; and purchased: MiraMax and Marvel.) Spshu (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting of a couple of the tables really needs to be fixed. I'm not sure if I know how to fix it, or I'd do it myself. Alphius (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The page does need some more TLC. Could you elaborate on what tables need to be fixed? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it might have been the last couple, but it looks like they're fixed now. Alphius (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Often times, the tables are accidentally messed up by someone during editing. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing films

There are few films missing on the list and I can't add them in beta version :( maybe someone with superpowers could correct it. the ones I found: -The Lion King II: Simba's Pride ; October 27, 1998 ; Walt Disney Pictures, DisneyToon Studios https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King_II:_Simba%27s_Pride -The Lion King 1½ ; February 10, 2004 ; Walt Disney Pictures, DisneyToon Studios, A. Film A/S -Bambi 2 ; February 7, 2006 ; DisneyToon Studios, Walt Disney Pictures -Mulan II ; February 1, 2005 ; SD Entertainment, Walt Disney Pictures -The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning ; August 26, 2008 ; Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment -Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure ; February 27, 2001 ; Disney Television Animation, Walt Disney Home Entertainment hope someone will fix it :)

This article is devoted to theatrical Disney releases. The films mentioned above are direct-to-video films, which are not included on this list. For a more appropriate list, see List of Disney home entertainment. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that statement entirely true? Aren't you also including TV's "Wonderful World of Disney" movies as a theatrical releases?

Other Potentially Missing films

The Miracle Worker , 12 Nov 2000

Summer of the Monkeys, 30 Oct 1998 (which actually did have a Box Office release)

13:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC) --Linusvpelt (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Other Potentially Missing films

[1] Who Framed Roger Rabbit, June 22, 1988, Hybrid.

Production companies: Walt Disney Animation Studios, Amblin Entertainment, Touchstone Pictures, Silver Screen Partners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.158.66 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

One more potential missing movie...The Nightmare Before Christmas. I see the IMAX release but not the original release date of 1994 on here. Vpelo (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

2001 - lady and the tramp 2: Scamps Adventure 94.15.168.121 (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The article states:- "this list does not include films released by other existing, defunct or divested labels... ...nor any direct-to-video releases."
Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure states it was a "2001 American direct-to-video animated film" so is not eligible for this list. - Arjayay (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Pixar

The list includes several animated films by Pixar that were produced before Disney bought Pixar (e.g. Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo, etc.). Those aren't "theatrical films released under the Walt Disney Pictures film label" and should be removed. Angr (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Those aforementioned Pixar films were all released by Disney under the Walt Disney Pictures banner during all of their original theatrical releases. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 00:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Lion King (2011)

Re-released of old films don't count as new films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Inspired by or Based on?

I believe there should be a distinction between a movie being inspired by or based on an original story. I say this because even Disney does not claim to have created "Frozen" BASED ON Hans Christian Anderson's original "The Snow Queen". The movie has INSPIRED BY in the credits and I believe this is a very important detail to be added to the page.

Here is a link to a screen shot of the credits from the movie.

--digitalbeachbum 11:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any list that shows which material these films are based on or inspired by? --MK8 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

what about The Return of Jafar and Aladdin and the King of Thieves ?

what about The Return of Jafar and Aladdin and the King of Thieves ? I think these two movies not mentioned in the list, and The Lion King II: Simba's Pride not mentioned also. --Abdulrahman Haddad (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Tarzan II not mentioned too. --Abdulrahman Haddad (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

They are direct to video, thus not listed. Spshu (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Education for Death

Notice that this is conveniently missing from just about every Disney list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.245.56 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a list of features, and Education for Death is a short. It's included on List of Disney animated shorts, for one. Trivialist (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

50.99.190.203 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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. Kharkiv07^Talk 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tru Confessions

Should: _Tru Confessions_ be included in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.220.90 (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• As Tru Confessions is a made-for-TV film, no. Trivialist (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cinderella (1987 film)

Cinderella is a 1987 animated feature produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation and released by Walt Disney Pictures on November 20, 1987. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.84.128 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• You might be thinking of Cinderella (1950 film), which was re-released in 1987. Trivialist (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dick Tracy (1990)

Should 'Dick Tracy (1990)' be included here? I didn't see it. I know it eventually fell to the Touchstone brand, but for the years when it was announced all the way leading up to its release, it was advertized as a Walt Disney Picture. It was produced at and financed by Disney Studios. I can link to a youtube of an old teaser for it that even says, "From Walt Disney Pictures, Coming Soon!" but I'm not going to take the time right now. Playerpage (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, this list is only for films released by Walt Disney Pictures (i.e. the Disney brand) during their theatrical release. Any changes in production should be mentioned at the film's specific article (which in this case, already is). ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 02:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Walt Disney Pictures India

Since the acquisition of UTV Motion Pictures in India in 2012, Disney has been increasingly releasing Indian language films (mainly Hindi) under the Disney banner not only in India but internationally. The Walt Disney Company (India) is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company however the films are clearly released and marketed under an identical Disney logo e.g. see Khoobsurat (2014 film) and ABCD 2. The article states that "This list is only for theatrical films released under the Disney banner" however does not include any subsidiaries owned by Walt Disney Studios. It does however contain Pixar films and Walt Disney Animation Studios which are subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company, which makes things confusing. On the 1st of October, an anonymous user with ip 65.129.93.104 removed my addition of the film ABCD 2 to the List of Walt Disney Pictures films page claiming "For the last time, that is not released by American Disney. It was released by Indian disney". The films Khoobsurat and Arjun: The Warrior Prince however are also released by Disney India and remain on the list however.

1. Which theatrical films of subsidiaries of Disney should be included in the list?
2. Should Indian language films produced by The Walt Disney Company globally should be included in the list?

Thanks koalajiv 01:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Theatrical films released on the under the Disney banner are the only ones that should be included on this list. In layman's terms, all theatrical films that are either; presented by "Walt Disney", "Walt Disney Productions", "Walt Disney Pictures" or "Disney"; includes the Disney production logo and/or on-screen credit in the film; or branded/marketed under the Disney moniker. Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios films (and for that matter, Disneynature) are included in this list because they are released under the Disney brand—the article's lead entails this.

In regards to Indian language films (and any foreign-produced films, for that matter), that should be left up to editors' consensus. Personally, I'm fine with including such films in this list, as long as they meet the aforementioned requirements (which ABCD 2 indeed does). ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The BFG update

DreamWorks Pictures is not co-producing the film anymore, but still serve as a copyright holder. 86.40.132.58 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

Please remove all Studio Ghibli films from this list. Disney was not in the production of these and only bought the rights to dubbed and distribute them. They are not under the Disney film production team 75.118.48.173 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC) 75.118.48.173 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. /wia🎄/tlk 03:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Actually the anon IP is correct; the films were produced and distributed by Studio Ghibli, with Disney only the distribution partner in the United States. They had no active role in the production of the films, as stated in the respective articles for the films. --McDoobAU93 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Add "The Force Awakens" to list of films.

http://movies.disney.com/all-movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.153.102 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The film is indeed owned by Disney, but it was not released under the "Walt Disney Pictures" banner; instead, it was released under the "Lucasfilm" banner. As such, it would not belong on this list. --McDoobAU93 22:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disney Channel movies

Is there any reason why movies from List of Disney Channel Original Movies don't seem to be listed here? Thanks. Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because those films were released directly to television and did not receive theatrical release. If you have a source that a particular film has been released to theatres (it has happened with some of the direct-to-video animated films that have been theatrically released outside of the United States), then that film could be added. --McDoobAU93 22:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2016

I would like to add Rotten Tomato score to all the films listed, I thought it would be a nice detail to add. Littlenimoy (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. That may be worth adding, not sure, but either way, SPERs are for when you already have the changes ready, and you have consensus for the change. Thanks for understanding --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2016

The following movies need to be indicated as "Hybrid" with an 'H' (both live action and animated) Alice in Wonderland (2010) Oz, The Great and Powerful The Jungle Book (2016) Alice through the Looking Glass Braindud92 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm not sure that CGI elements count (or else most films would be hybrid). Films with live action and animation seems to imply hybrid films have entire scenes or sequences that are animated. clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Magiriam: The Golden Owl

I can't find any information on this, and the cited source didn't mention it either. I don't think it's a real thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, sorry to bother you. 50.135.188.198 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. --McDoobAU93 22:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 Sptember 2016

The following movie need to be indicated as "Hybrid" with an 'H' (both live action and animated) Pete's Dragon (2016 film) 82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

The following movies need to be indicated as "Hybrid" with an 'H' (both live action and animated) The BFG and the upcoming Rescue Rangers &. Mary Poppins sqeuel.

82.38.157.176 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Topher385 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Policy on hybrid vs. live-action

What is the policy on stating a film is live-action over a hybrid? A lot of recent Disney fairy-tale films mix CGI-generated and live-action characters. CR85747 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hybrid or Live Action

I am under the impression that The BFG(2016) is a Hybrid film, including both Live Action and Performance Capture, and not Live Action alone, should this be changed? — 86.23.105.58 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Just noticed a few other people are already talking about this, sorry for duplicate.

Enchanted sequel removal

Someone is removing the upcoming Enchanted sequel from the list claiming that it'll be released straight to video instead of in theaters without hard evidence. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: there is some disagreement on which in-development films should remain listed. See the conversation below (at the bottom).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't magic camp dated yet?

The release date has been announced ya know. Y'all can do it Jstar367 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jstar367: there is currently no release date for the film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Gigantic

It was canceled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.188.232.114 (talk • contribs)

Done Appropriate and it's listed at List of unproduced Disney animated shorts and feature films. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Walt Disney Pictures 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104013132/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/749/749557p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/749/749557p1.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove King of the Elves

It was canceled.

 Done  Ivecos (t) 10:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Tarzan (live-action remake)

Walt Disney Pictures will be begin plan the live-action remake of the 1999 Walt Disney Feature Animation film Tarzan on February 2, 2018 (aka Groundhog Day). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.247.95 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@24.64.247.95; where is your source? Secondly, you need to sign your comments so that editors can respond to you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Noelle and upcoming streaming service

Why are movies like Noelle (2019 film), Magic Camp, The Sword in the Stone (film)#Live-action film adaptation, etc. still on here if they are no longer coming to theatres? :( —Cineplex^Talk 7:51PM, February 16, 2018

@Cineplex: this article as it currently exists is a list of Walt Disney Pictures films. These are not solely theatrical films. One of the draws/marketing points of Disney+ is that it will debut theatrical-quality films that are produced under their main studio (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures). That is why these films are still on this list.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

New Disney's movie produced in Russia

Please, add the new Disney's Russian movie The Last Warrior. Нечитайлер (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Walt Disney's studio really make his second movie in Russian Federation! Proof link: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Последний богатырь — Preceding unsigned comment added by Нечитайлер (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Last Warrior

Please, add to this page new Disney's movie produced on Russia, The Last Warrior. How is this possible: The Book of Masters is, but The Last Warrior - no? This is also a Disney film.

Prooflink: http://ybw-group.com/#section-full-project?url=%2Fproject%2Fthe-last-warrior Нечитайлер (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Нечитайлер: before re-submitting this request a third time, please read, understand, and follow [[WP:RS|the policy on identifying reliable sources}}. The Russian Wikipedia and a non-independent web page are not significant or independent reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The section "Future releases" is inadequate

The section "Future releases", specifically the "In development - theatrical releases" subsection, is completely inadequate and borders on fan blog instead of an encyclopaedic article. Almost all the movies cited in the subsection are "supported" with the weakest of the references, some of them not even suggesting that the movie is (or still is) in production.

For example, the "Untitled A Bug's Life Sequel" is linked to an article which clearly states that the speculation of a sequel is based on a mere tweet. Other damaging entries are these which use very old references, without giving any further proof that such a (supposed) long-in-development movie is still in the works. One example is the reference used for the "Gargoyles" movie, which is dated from 2011, with no further suggestion whatsoever that the movie is still in production now in 2018.

The entire subsection needs to be redone, for it lacks the encyclopaedic rigour that each and every Wikipedia article needs to follow.

Tim Week (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tim Week:. I have removed every movie in the the "In development" subsection with a source more than five years old. Movies are canceled by the studio all the time and there is no evidence any of these are still in development. I see no purpose of a "List of films Disney has purchased the rights to or have requested a script about" but those I deleted would belong there, not here. I could certainly support removing the rest of the subsection as well, enforcing a shorter source age limit, or limiting it to films with sources that it is under active filming/animation. Reywas92^Talk 07:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Is Who Framed Roger Rabbit? not counted as a Disney release? LeftHandedGuitarist (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Although Who Framed Roger Rabbit was produced and released by Disney, it was released under the studio's Touchstone Pictures label, therefore it is on that corresponding list. This is only for films released under the Walt Disney Pictures label. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 17:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@LeftHandedGuitarist: and @Jedi94: Despite this however, the film should be listed here (I would argue). Reason being - the Walt Disney Animated Studios did the animation production for the film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Disney created an animation unit for the film in London supervised by Richard Williams and made up of animators from Feature Animation and Williams' own team. The unit was dissolved after production on the film was completed. So although the film was animated by many of Walt Disney Animation Studios' own staff and produced by the studio's own Don Hahn, it was not entirely a WDAS production either. That being said, it is appropriately mentioned at List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films under "Related productions". As for inclusion here; this page is only for films produced by and released under the Walt Disney Pictures banner (so involvement by Walt Disney Animation Studios is irrelevant), which ultimately Roger Rabbit never was issued as, therefore explaining its omission. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 21:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Tini: The Movie

Would Tini: The Movie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tini:_The_Movie) be an appropriate addition to this page? C5mjohn (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition awards

Add awards winning films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.55.189.239 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Film Type

Films like "The Jungle Book" (2016) are listed as L which means they are live-action films. However films like that seem more suitable for the H category because they are "Hybrid films with live action and animation". Why are most of the Disney remakes not under that category?4Corry11 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@4Corry11: see the edit comment histories for this one. The general consensus has been that any live-action styled/dominant film is listed as such. Hybrid classification has been used for films with live action and traditional animation combined. The modern-day cinema productions us CGI in much of their production. This does not render the film a hybrid. If it did - all modern-day movies would be 'hybrids'.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: Ok then why is G-force under H if the only animation is CGI? --4Corry11 (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@4Corry11: frankly, it shouldn't be. This whole article/list needs restructuring. Far too many limitations, exceptions, and exclusions in it. Because Disney produces various studios' films -- the list needs to be completely overhauled.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

You forgot The Lion King 1/2 it was released February 10,2004, You also Forgot Kronk's New Groove it was released on November 28th, 2005 and Brother Bear 2 it was released on August 17, 2006 they are all animated films DisneyLover1992 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This list only includes films distributed in theatres. Direct-to-video releases (such as these three films) are not included here. However, they are all listed at List of Disney feature-length home entertainment releases. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Tini: The Movie

A Spanish-Italian film Tini: The Movie which was produced by Walt Disney Company was theatrically released in the native countries along with a lot of countries but it was released digitally in United states https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/intl/?id=_fTINIELGRANCAMBIO01&country=ES&wk=2016W19&id=_fTINIELGRANCAMBIO01&p=.htm So it should be included or not in the list??. Sid95Q (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: this film should definitely be listed here. Whether it was release in the states or a foreign-only release, so long as it is a theatrical film and has the Walt Disney Company as a production company - it should be included.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: I have already added this film to the list. I was also thinking of adding films like High School Musical: El Desafío and High School Musical: O Desafio. Sid95Q (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained absence of this film on the list, they are listed under the company section

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0118172/

The Wind in the Willows was not/is not a Walt Disney Studios film. It was merely distributed on home media (VHS) in the U.S. by Disney.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Lion King (2019)

This movie is erroneously listed as live action. It uses computer generated animations. Because of this the tag for it should be changed to animated. Drezirale (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed to animated. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The film is a photo-realistic, live action-styled film. There is also real-world photography in it. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Some mistakes

Missing compilation feature films released in the United States (Walt Disney Productions): New Year's Jamboree - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-year.htm Winter Hilarities - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-winter.htm Spring Frolics - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-spring.htm Easter Parade - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-easter.htm Mickey's Birthday Party - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-mickey.htm Walt Disney's All-Cartoon Festival - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-allcartoon.htm 4th of July Firecrackers - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-july.htm Summer Jubilee - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-summer.htm Drive-In Frivolities - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-drivein.htm Drive-In Frolics - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-drive-in-frolics.htm Fall Varieties - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-fall.htm Halloween Hilarities - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-halloween.htm Election Day Gaieties - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-election.htm Thanksgiving Day Mirthquakes - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-thanksgiving.htm Christmas Jollities - 1953 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1953-christmas-.htm Music Land - 1955 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1955-musicland.htm Mickey Mouse Happy Birthday Show - 1968 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1968-party.htm Walt Disney's Cartoon Shorts Subjects - 1971 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1971-cartoon.htm Mickey's Birthday Party Show - 1978 https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/compil-CI/1978-party.htm

Missing international Disney-branded films: The Secret of the Magic Gourd - 2007 (China) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2007-gourde.htm High School Musical - El Desafio - 2008 (Argentina) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2008-HSM-Argentine.htm High School Musical - El Desafio - 2008 (Mexico) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2008-HSM-Mexique.htm Spangas on Survival - 2009 (Netherlands) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2009-spangas.htm High School Musical - O Desafio - 2010 (Brazil) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2010-HSM-Bresil.htm High School Musical China - 2010 (China) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2010-HSM-Chine.htm Foeksia de Miniheks - 2011 (Netherlands) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2010-fuschia.htm Happiness Is... - 2015 (Russia) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2015-happiness.htm The Last Warrior - 2017 (Russia) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2017-last-warrior.htm The Dreaming Man - 2017 (China) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2017-dreaming-man.htm Happiness Is... Part 2 - 2019 (Russia) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2019-happiness2.htm

Lady and the Tramp remake shouldn't be here as it will be released on Disney+, not in theaters. The Lion King remake is not a live action film, it is animated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.67.43 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@User:85.171.67.43; none of these film's you have listed are full-length films (they're all shorts, in a compilation). Additionally, the High School Musical movies are Disney Channel Original movies. They are not Walt Disney Studios films. Any straight-to-video releases are/were done by ToonDisney Studios -- they will not be added to this article. Additionally, Lady and the Tramp is listed here as it is a Walt Disney Studios film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: The High School Musical films listed are International versions which were released theatrically in native coyntry and some other countries. Sid95Q (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: those films are still Disney Channel Movies. They are not Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures productions.--≠DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: High School Musical: O Desafio and High School Musical: El Desafío both were co-produced by disney and were released theatrically [2] and [3] thoug High School Musical China was not produced by WDMS, it was just a Disney branded film produced by local companies. Sid95Q (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Also per sources [4] Russian films Last Knight (film) and The Book of Masters. Sid95Q (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sid95Q: if they are Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures films, I would say go ahead and add them to the list with included sources stating that they are.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, so long as they are a subsidiary of the main Walt Disney Studios, it can also be listed here. The general consensus has been to keep separate studios that Disney has bought - out of this list. High School Musical: China - College Dreams as well as your High School Musical: O Desafio and High School Musical: El Desafío can/should be listed as well - given they are theatrical releases and not produced by Disney Channel.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New list for entire Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures line of films

As much as this list is fine how it is, how about creating a page for the entire Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures library and not just the separate labels, it would remove the need for a separate page identifying separate lists of films they have released, but also give a person a good idea about how many films Disney releases every year. Any comment that opposes this page will be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I will say right from the start that you aren't going to be deleting other's comments here without a valid reason per WP:TALKO. That being said, if we were to do this then the page would become so large it would be uncomfortable to read. We should leave things the way they are in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@User:184.54.163.113; you shouldn't be deleting comments simply because they disagree with you. Consensuses are reached/changes are made by collaboration between editors. I would agree that one page with all the lists of Disney films would be helpful in one degree. However, this does make for a very long article. Despite this, one page listing The Walt Disney Company films, with sub-sections dividing studios may not hurt... basically I am Indifferent regarding this suggestion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need to denote whether or not the films are live-action or animated?

It just seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:588:8400:5BE5:D58F:213:F4A8:1F47 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@User:2601:588:8400:5BE5:D58F:213:F4A8:1F47; You need to sign each of your comments so that editors can respond to you. The color-coded classifications are something that has been around since forever. I for one, agree that is somewhat superfluous.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding The King's Man to the list

Source: https://www.waltdisneystudios.com/news-post/the-king-s-man-set-to-open-february-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.163.113 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The King's Man is not a Walt Disney Pictures movie, it's a 20th Century Fox movie. Please delete this entry as this is not a list about every movie distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, but ONLY the Disney-branded movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.180.240.92 (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the article 500,000 times and respond back when you have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.64.61 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Users: @184.54.163.113, @159.180.240.92, and @66.192.64.61 -- you need to sign your comments when you make them. Firstly: The King's Man is not a Walt Disney Studios film, so it does not belong on this article as-is. Lastly, the comment about reading the article 500,000 times doesn't make sense.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Disney+ vs Direct-to-video Walt Disney Pictures films

The inclusion of Walt Disney Pictures films which are headed for Disney+ in this list puzzles me. For years the article only included WDP films that were released on cinemas, ignoring, for example, films produced under the label which were meant for direct-to-video releases (e.g. the Tinker Bell films). However, it now also includes Disney+ films, which is completely inconsistent with the previous policy. What makes a WDP film meant for Disney+ so different than a direct-to-video one to the point of being able to override the previous article policy?

The article needs to either focus only on WDP films released on cinemas or on ALL WDP films (that is, direct-to-video, Disney+, etc). The way it is done now gives the article not only an aspect of inconsistency but also of favouritism.

Tim Week (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tim Week: I think maybe we should add the direct-to-video films here, with the idea of listing all WDP films together. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tim Week: and @Daniel Carrero: This article/list is based on Walt Disney Studios productions. The Disney+ movies listed are films that were produced/aka made by that film studio (the same one that creates theatrical movies). Disney+ is a direct-to-consumer medium, which will feature Disney Studios exclusive content as an incentive for subscribers. Not all Disney+ films will be listed here (see the Phineas and Ferb movie that was produced by the Disney Channel studios). The article is specifically for Walt Disney Studios releases. Direct-to-home video releases are not-yet listed here (due to the page's structure/topic/purpose).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead:Direct-to-video releases like Inspector Gadget 2, George of the Jungle 2 or The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, are all made by the Walt Disney Studios and have the Walt Disney Pictures logo at the beginning. So if we include the Disney+ content, there is absolutely no reason not to include the direct-to-video ones.

The Lion King (2019) = animated / The Jungle Book (2016) = hybrid

User:DisneyMetalhead recently edited this list to say that The Lion King (2019) and The Jungle Book (2016) are live action films.

I believe the correct classification would be:

• The Lion King (2019) = animated film (the lions are computer-generated, there were no real lions filmed)

  The article about the film currently describes it as "a photorealistic computer animated remake".

  The article is currently in 5 categories with "animated" in the title (2019 computer-animated films, 3D animated films, American computer-animated films, Category:Animated coming-of-age films, and Category:Animated films about revenge).

• The Jungle Book (2016) = hybrid film (because Mowgli is human and the animals are CGI)

  The article about the film currently describes it as "a live-action/CGI film".

  The article is in Category:Films with live action and animation.

The lions in The Lion King are verifiably computer-generated, much like Frozen and other movies, except this time using a photorealistic style. This film is the result of the work of animators. It would be a live action movie if Disney filmed real lions.

I'm aware that some live action movies use some CGI. For instance, Avengers: Infinity War has some CGI characters like Thanos and Rocket. These films are still mostly live action with relatively little CGI. If Marvel created a new movie with only Thanos and Rocket interacting with other CGI characters, it would be an animated film.

If a film uses much CGI and much live action, as in The Jungle Book, it's a hybrid film.

Related discussions:

• The Lion King (2019) has been recently discussed at Talk:List of highest-grossing animated films, because that film is present in the list of highest-grossing animated films.
• I also opened a discussion at User talk:DisneyMetalhead#The Lion King.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: you are using some very specific ultimatums and statements to classify hybrid vs live action vs animation. Your comparison to Frozen is poor, as they are not similar in the least bit. Yes, The Lion King has CGI animals. Yes the majority of it is CGI, but what film isn't these days?? Do you honestly think that the only CGI in Avengers: Infinity War / Avengers: Endgame was Thanos and Rocket? The large majority of that film was CGI. That is how the filmmaking business works in the modern-age. No, this does not make those films "hybrids". For the sake of this table, which can have any parameters that the key/legend specifies - hybrid movies are live action, mixed with traditional 2D animation. Animation is cartoon-styled filmmaking. You cannot logically state that any blockbuster film is not predominantly CGI. Your examples are poor in this regard.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The MPAA have strict criteria for what they count as an animated film:

An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of more than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time.

The key difference here is that even in CGI heavy films such as The Jungle Book the bulk of the film is not created using frame-by-frame techniques. They are usually filmed on blue screen and the background and CGI is matted in afterwards. Ironically The Lion King is actually one of the least ambiguous films around in terms of classification: it did not utilise live-action filming i.e. it is animated as defined by our general understanding of the term but also by the MPAA's own rules. Betty Logan (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's fine and reinforces my statement that Jungle Book nor any live action film with CGI/motion-capture use is not a hybrid. What I am stating is that for the purposes of this chart - where The Lion King is a live-action styled photorealistic film - it has been agreed/discussed ad nauseam that the film should be classified as-is: a live-action styled film.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Where it has been discussed? I didn't find that discussion in this talk page. In any event, I don't think an animated movie like The Lion King (2019) should be called "live action" since this would be a false statement and it would contradict other articles, including the article of the movie itself.

If for some reason we wanted to use the label "L" for photorealistic animated movies on this table as a one-time exception anyway, the label should read "L = "Live action films, or photorealistic animated films". I'm not advocating for this exactly, but it would at least be accurate.

By the way, Dinosaur (2000) also uses realistic CGI animation, just not on the level of The Lion King (2019). It's currently labeled "A" for animated film. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

These films are neither live-action (the animals are computer generated) nor 2D cell-animated (they are not hand-drawn or on filmed on cells). They are computer animated to imitate reality. Maybe a new category is needed: (near-)realistic computer animation. Perhaps splitting animation into 2D cell animation and 3D computer animation, whether realistic or not. Then Snow White and Cars would be in different categories, and rightly so. Danielklein (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I support the idea of splitting animation into 2D cell animation and 3D computer animation. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I like @Danielklein:'s idea. The problem with it, is as filmmaking evolves - there will be too many classifications. The color-coded categories are rather excessive in my opinion. Someone who wants to know about....say Swiss Family Robinson for example, would simply click the link - which takes them to the film's article where it tells them/shows them it is live-action. I would argue that doing away with categories altogether, would eliminate all this debate/confusion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. The idea would be splitting one current category (animated films) into two (traditional and CGI). Many kinds of movie categories already exist, but we don't need to list all of them in this page.

Disney appears to be most famous for its animated films. If this page listed all movies without any labels or categories, I'd suggest creating List of Walt Disney Pictures animated films. (some page to list all Disney animated films together, as opposed to current separated lists of different studios, such as List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films and List of Pixar films) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, @Daniel Carrero: .... Dinosaur is not at all photo-realistic. It's stylized and more cartoony. Poor comparison.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think no one here said that Dinosaur is photorealistic. I said "realistic". Although some sources call it "photorealistic".[5][6] I think that was a good comparison, because Dinosaur is not quite on the level of The Lion King. Both are quite realistic if not for the cartoon animals. Arguably, the talking lions make even The Lion King (2019) cartoony to some extent.

I wonder what we would do if we got some more examples of animated films between the levels of realism of Dinosaur (2000) and The Lion King (2019). If we start calling the less realistic ones "animated" and the more realistic ones "live action", it would be interesting to see where we would draw the line.

If we had a label for CGI films, it should include both Dinosaur (2000) and The Lion King (2019). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The Golden Globes have officially recognized The Lion King as an animated film, in their list of nominations. Using this source, we should relabel it as "A". Anterras (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Future releases

Pinging previous participants @Tim Week:, @Trivialist:, @DisneyMetalhead:, @TheMovieGuy:. I think it's simply ridiculous to have a huge list of films about which a single announcement was made even more than a decade ago but nothing ever happened. Many of these are mere passing mentions or single announcements that a director/producer is working on an untitled film, that a writer may be coming up with a script, or even an actor signed on to a role, but in a huge number of these cases, it simply died. Studios begin work on countless projects that don't end up panning out because the script isn't good, producers land other projects, or the studio simply changes its mind. To say that all these films with a one-time news release from 2013, 2010, even 2005 is "under development" is a LIE! Several of the sources are simply that Disney bought the rights to a book or that they're in talks with a writer or director, NOT that a film is actually in pre-production or pre-pre-production. Sure the original Lilo and Stitch took a while from conception to release (there haven't been any updates since last year's announcement it would be remade), but it's preposterous to claim that all of these must be retained indefinitely. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: when there's actual evidence that production is moving forward, something can be re-added! But as it stands, there needs to be a time limit or minimum criteria for stage of development for inclusion, not over 100 films for which there is zero evidence that they actual "future releases". Reywas92^Talk 06:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

THANK you. Until it's clear that the project is actually in production, it shouldn't be listed. Trivialist (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree strongly with @Trivialist:'s statement. Yes there needs to be some 'weeding out' of films that didn't ever have a film announced to be in-development. No, we aren't going to just delete all the movies that aren't in pre-production yet. This specific section is meant to list the films that are in VARIOUS stages of development. If we need to make a section specifically for what's in development (as has been done on similar articles) - this would be beneficial to say the least. Should definitely sort-out films that the rights to a book were simply purchased (as @Reywas92: had pointed out).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Why should projects in development even be listed? The article title is "List of Walt Disney Pictures films", not "List of Walt Disney Picture films and projects in development." Trivialist (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trivialist: the article reader would have a sense/foresight of what the studio has upcoming/in development. This has been done on other similar pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So please propose a clear, narrow standard for inclusion. Perhaps a source within the past two years that puts them in pre-production? Merely having a script requested or a director hired does not make something a film yet. Please share these similar pages in case they have a usable standard or I need to clear out outdated junk there too. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed it needs to be weeded out. I would say a good place to start is removing films that have no creatives involved (no director, no screenwriter, no studios, etc). Once those are cleared out, we can discuss what should remain and what can go. A short paragraph, perhaps in pros could be at the bottom of the page stating that 'projects' Disney has purchased rights to - but have not doing anything with them. Perhaps a 'Potential projects' sub-section(?).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not re-add false information to the article in the middle of this. You have reinserted lies to the article, incorrectly suggesting that all of these years-old project announcements, rights purchases, and untitled script ideas are actually "in development" when there is no evidence that that is true. A good place to start is to assume that anything that has not begun filming is not actually happening, seeing how there are 82 films released in the 2010s so far (including Disneynature and other studios) and a whopping 114 supposedly in development. Start from nothing and then add those which have multiple sources over a period of time indicating they are actually moving forward even beyond hiring people. The limited number of dates in the 2020s section makes clear that even a small fraction of this number is unlikely and any assumptions about which it may be is speculation unfit for this article. No, this is a list of films, not projects Disney has the rights to. It is not a film until it is made or is at least in production, and to include such is peering into a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Reywas92^Talk 07:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Animated action

Many Live action animated films on this page Christopher Robin or BFG are being labelled as live action also some animated films such as Fantasia 2000 is being called live action animated.

I have two proposals

One we use a definition for what makes a animated film for example the academy awards definition witch states An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of more than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters' performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 per cent of the picture's running time.|source=—Rule Seven – Special Rules for the Animated Feature Film Award: I. Definition.

Two we remove it all together Fanoflionking 23:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Or add an additional category for modern motion capture filmmaking or whatever but the first suggestion works. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - this is valid information for the reader and doesn't need to be removed just because some movies don't fit "A" or "L" perfectly. Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I personal would go by the frist as that will give us a clearer idea, I will it in the morning Fanoflionking 00:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

67.251.11.100 (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas and Friends Annie Potts as Narrator Martin Sherman as Thomas Percy and James

 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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Article restructuring

This has been stated before, and frankly this is getting to be to complex. The massive number of restrictions regarding what can and cannot go on this article's table is ridiculous. All films made by Disney should be included in one list. The way that we can distinguish studios from others would be to have a redirect of susidiaryDisneyA article, to this page, with a section of said subsidiary here-in. In addition to this it would place all of the same content (i.e.: Disney movies) in one article. This is obviously a HUGE undertaking, but with a combined effort to do so - this should be accomplishable. The first step would be: which Disney subsidiaries are notable enough to have their own sub-section? Walt Disney Animation, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm Ltd, Touchstone Pictures, The Muppet Studio, Pixar Animation, 20th Century Fox, etc... thoughts?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, it's time for the color-coding to go. The colors are too fan-page like. Instead of this, within the table we can have a column that stats what kind of movie it is (straight-to-video, live action, animation, live action/2D animation hybrid, documentary, etc).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There already exists an article with that very purpose and such efforts should be addressed and constructed there. This article is fairly simple; it is only a list of films produced/released by/under the Walt Disney Pictures banner regardless of the form of exhibition. That being said, whether we should include direct-to-video films that also fall under this requirement (alongside the current theatrical and streaming releases) merits discussion and I believe now they should be included in order to maintain that aforementioned purpose. I agree that color-coding designations should be removed, along with maybe the Disneynature films since that is a separate label. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 04:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

I found two titles of Disney movies that are not included in this list. An Extremely Goofy Movie - 02/29/2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Extremely_Goofy_Movie Bambi II - 01/26/2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_II

I would like to see these two titles added to the list

Bill Parker 2600:1700:1AD0:3860:BCCD:3153:8B13:939F (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the lead this list does not include direct-to-video releases. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Dasavathaaram - 2008

Please delete Dasavathaaram (2008) from the list as it has absolutely nothing to do with Disney. It's not a Walt Disney Pictures film. It's not even a film from any of the other studios from Disney (Touchstone, 20th Century Fox...).

 Done ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 08:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are still these international Disney-branded films missing: The Secret of the Magic Gourd - 2007 (China) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2007-gourde.htm High School Musical - El Desafio - 2008 (Argentina) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2008-HSM-Argentine.htm High School Musical - El Desafio - 2008 (Mexico) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2008-HSM-Mexique.htm Spangas on Survival - 2009 (Netherlands) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2009-spangas.htm High School Musical - O Desafio - 2010 (Brazil) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2010-HSM-Bresil.htm High School Musical China - 2010 (China) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2010-HSM-Chine.htm Foeksia de Miniheks - 2011 (Netherlands) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2010-fuschia.htm Happiness Is... - 2015 (Russia) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2015-happiness.htm The Last Warrior - 2017 (Russia) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2017-last-warrior.htm The Dreaming Man - 2017 (China) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2017-dreaming-man.htm Happiness Is... Part 2 - 2019 (Russia) https://www.chroniquedisney.fr/film/2019-happiness2.htm

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DashInc (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

3 Ghibli are Walt Disney Pictures films

Those 3 Ghibli which are the only ones released under the Disney banner: Spirited Away - 2001 (released under the Walt Disney Studios banner) Ponyo - 2008 (Walt Disney Pictures) The Secret World of Arrietty (Walt Disney Pictures)

Please can someone add them to the list?

Tinker Bell and Bambi 2

Although they were only released at the El Capitan Theater in Los Angeles in the US, every Tinker Bell movies have been released in theaters internationally. They should be included in this list.

The same goes for Bambi 2. It was a direct-to-video in the US but it was released in the theaters in many countries around the world.

Of course, there wouldn't even be a debate if we just include every Walt Disney Pictures direct-to-video films. Now that we include the Disney+ films, there is absolutely no reason to omit the direct-to-video ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DashInc (talk • contribs) 12:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Change "Future releases" > "Onward" from L (live-action) to A (animated), it is not a live-action film.

WornItsKeyItem (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Add Roadside Romeo

This movie was made by Walt Disney Pictures India in 2008 and is missing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Romeo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripner (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A film is missing from the list

The 2000 movie titled Whispers: An Elephant's Tale is not in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.223.243.77 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Andrew Gunn is not set to produce the upcoming film Magic Camp. 69.196.139.144 (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 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. TheImaCow (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

There was supposed to be a space between the film's title Hamilton and the ‡ symbol. 69.196.139.144 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 15:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Andrew Gunn won't be involved in producing Magic Camp. Can anybody remove Gunn Films from the Magic Camp section? 104.222.126.88 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 02:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Secret Society of Second-Born Royals has been moved by three months to September 25, 2020. 216.154.40.40 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

An Untitled Brian Fee Project is set to be released on June 18, 2021 and will be animated. 216.154.40.40 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Can somebody remove Encanto from this page? 216.154.40.40 (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No. It has a source to verify its existence. Why do you want it removed?Crboyer (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

There is no link to Encanto 216.154.40.40 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The link is red because there is no article for that film. When someone creates the article, the link will automatically turn blue. RudolfRed (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

LION KING 2 IS MISSING HERE!!!

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT LION KING 2 IS MISSING FROM THIS LIST?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.5.167 (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020

The link to Disneynature#Growing Up Wild no longer exists. Can you remove the link, please? 45.72.248.6 (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Section no longer exists on target page. Linking it to the top of the page would create a WP:DUPLINK. Unlinking is appropriate. Thanks! Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

Can you remove the extra column from the section of films from the 2000s, please? 45.72.235.141 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any extra columns. What are you referring to? Crboyer (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC) The Column on the right of the section.

I think Starzoner just took care of it. It was that hard to see. Crboyer (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

Andrew Gunn is not involved in Magic Camp because there were no citations for Gunn to produce. 45.72.235.141 (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

The citation in the slot of Magic Camp was supposed to go after the ‡ symbol. 45.72.235.141 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 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. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

There are the letters TBA when they are supposed to be capitals. 216.154.30.200 (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

This page is missing the Disney film 'The Prince and the Pauper,' produced in 1962. Joliejacq14 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joliejacq14: Was it released under the Disney name or under one if the other Disney studios such as Buena Vista etc? This list is only for films released under "Disney" and not any other studio Disney owns. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It was an episode of Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color, but it was released theatrically (I think) in Europe.Crboyer (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 20:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Walt Disney Pictures theatrical films

I'd like to request a name change for this article from it's current title to List of Walt Disney Pictures theatrical films and remove the films not released theatrically in North America like Dasavathaaram and Disney+ original films like Lady and the Tramp. —Cody Fearless-Lee^Talk 8:22PM - August 30, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason that Walt Disney Pictures films released theatrically outside of North America should be excluded. Trivialist (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggested excluding them to make the article less confusing for Disney aficionados. However, the Disney+ movies should go as not only do they have an article of their own, but if they are on here because they were made by Walt Disney Pictures, then that's saying the direct-to-video movies should end up on here too. —Cody Fearless-Lee^Talk 8:48PM - August 31, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose your suggestion, however I acknowledge that this list is currently not representing all films released or produced by WDP. Picsovina (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed request as well. However, you are indeed correct in that there are some direct-to-video films produced by Walt Disney Pictures that are missing from this list—mostly because no one has taken up the task of adding them. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 08:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Co-funded Movies

This is a request upon another editor's suggestion.

Would movies that Disney co-funded with another studio count for this page? I'm asking because Walt Disney Studios Japan |(credited as Walt Disney Japan or Buena Vista Home Entertainment in English releases) have co-funded 10% of all of Studio Ghibli's movies since My Neighbors the Yamadas and also co-funded Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence and Studio Ponoc's movies. But technically, do those kind of movies count for this page or not? Disney did dub a majority of Ghibli movies into english (including some released before the deal but were produced after the deal was announced) as well.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion those Ghibli movies should be included here which were released by Walt Disney Pictures in North America. I added them back, because the Walt Disney Studios list also acknowledges them as movies released under the WDP label. Co-funding is different than co-production in my opinion, because the first is only a financial contribution, but co-production means creative control too. Picsovina (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess this would exclude the films GKIDS released in the US (although Disney did distribute them in France and I think Taiwan as well). Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

There are links to Gunn Films and Team Todd you forgot to add on the right side of the slot of Magic Camp. 76.10.139.234 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Please Disney's Newsies: The Broadway Musical (2017) to the list. Thank you. 104.59.89.142 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please be specific with where you want to add it and provide enough detail for a full entry. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

Gunn Films was never involved in Magic Camp. 45.72.240.178 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Only mentions I see is IMDb, but that's unreliable. Andrew Gunn isn't mentioned anywhere where Magic Camp is, and Rotten Tomatoes only lists Team Todd too. Removed because it's slightly dubious. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

Please remove the 20th Century Studios films from this article. 104.195.199.235 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 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. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 05:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020 (2)

Please add Flora & Ulysses to the section with future releases. 104.195.199.235 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Starzoner (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020 (3)

Please add the ‡ symbol next to the title Flora & Ulysses. It is a Disney+ original film. 104.195.199.235 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 05:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

Please add a space between the title Flora & Ulysses and the ‡ symbol, and it has to go after the ]]″. 104.195.199.235 (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

Please remove the ‡ symbol on the right side of the title Shrunk, it is a theatrically released film. 69.165.158.97 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)