Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated feature films/Archive 1

Confirmed two animated movies Disney·ImageMovers Digital: Cars Needs Moms! and Airman

Source: comingsoon.net.

Mars Needs Moms!: While the studios are still in a contract stalemate with the Screen Actors Guild, they are ramping up production so that they will have releases for 2010 and 2011. Variety reports that the following projects are on the studios' slates (some are already filming):

DISNEY

• Tim Burton-directed "Alice in Wonderland";

• "Tron" sequel;

* Robert Zemeckis-produced motion-capture film "Mars Needs Moms";

• Jon Turteltaub-directed "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" with Nicolas Cage;

• Walt Becker- helmed "Wild Hogs 2"

[1]

Airman: Gil Kenan (upcoming City of Ember) and Robert Zemeckis, who teamed for Monster House, are partnering again for a big-screen version of Airman, a children's adventure book by "Artemis Fowl" author Eoin Colfer.

The Hollywood Reporter says Kenan will direct the adaptation, which will be done using performance capture technology. Zemeckis will produce with his ImageMovers partners Jack Rapke and Steve Starkey.

The swashbuckling scientific story centers on Conor Broekhart, a young man born in a hot air balloon to a family close to the king who has a penchant for looking to the skies for inspiration. After his tutor and king are murdered, Broekhart spends two years in prison, escapes and must decide whether to should turn his back on those who abandoned him or fight those who plot to overthrow the government.

TWO TITLES FOR 'Other animated films released by Disney' with Alice in Wonderland or Frankenweenie by Tim Burton, and A Christmas Carol or Calling All Robots by Robert Zemeckis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.210.76 (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.210.76 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons be included?

After some research, Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons is only about 41 minutes long, which doesn't fullfill the criteria of a feature-length film. It also wasn't meant to be a feature-length film, but just a compilation of previous cartoons to promote the release of the real first feature-length film, Snow White. The official book Disney A to Z also doesn't include the film in its list of Disney feature films. I know two films in the official canon, Saludos Amigos and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, are also too short and a compilation of previous cartoons respectively, but the fact is they have already been officially considered by Disney as part of the canon features (and yes, Disney A to Z lists Saludos Amigos in the feature film list, and notes that it is an "exception to the general rule"). Therefore I think Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons should be removed from this list and also the template. But first, we have to reach a consensus, so please give your opinions. Chris1219 08:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been no reply for some time, so I'll remove that film from the list as the reason is strong enough. Chris1219 12:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Toy Story

I don't see Toy Story listed or included in this article, why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mookiebomber (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Smart Vandal

Someone changed a bunch of the links for the movie articles ever so slightly so that they would lead to non-existing articles. The person changed the date 1937 to 1938 for snow white, changed Caballeros to Caballers, changed Adventures to Adventure and Toad to Tord in The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, and added a date to Fantasia. They weren't undetectable, but small changes. Pretty sneaky. 72.137.57.251 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed Chitty Chitty Bang Bang from the article, as this movie is NOT by Disney. --emb021

The "original" is useless(?)

Why is the "Original List as submitted to Wikipedia" still on Wikipedia? It's inconsistensy and the fact that it does not match Disney's own numbering make it essentially useless in my opinion. OuroborosSlayer 20:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

article presentation.

This looks a bit tacky. What I will do is present the offical 44-film list, explain the official methodology, and list the other animated films in a seperate list. --b. Touch 23:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chicken Little #45?

Should we add Chicken Little to the offical canon list? I'm just asking. --TheLH 15:53, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know. For right now, however, we won't. Perhaps Disney will address the issue in the upcoming months before Chicken Little's theatrical release. --FuriousFreddy 16:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's late enough now that it should now be known whether this movie should count as #45. Surprisingly, one Internet site claims that Disney stops counting its sequence as early as #40. I think the best thing is to just count whatever way makes the most sense to you, which other people might disagree with. 66.32.164.242 00:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that you could look at it a few different ways. There seems to be different "eras", respectively, if you look over the official list. Take note that the animated films, which are generally musicals stop being musicals after Tarzan and Fantasia 2000. By this way one could say that the cannon stops here. But if you look at it another way: 1-5 are musicals, 6-11 are compliations of shorts, 12-21 are classic stories and musicals and so on. Chicken Little could just be the start of a new "era". Also notice the differences in animation, 6-11 include live action shots with animated background, 12-21 are technicolor, it would make sense that computer animation is okay as long as they keep doing it. [[User: Omnibus Progression, August 4, 2006

I have split them up like this: Snow White to Bambi; Saludos Amigos to The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad; Cinderella to Robin Hood; The Rescuers to Oliver & Company; The Little Mermaid to Tarzan, (up to debate of cours)... after this I am not sure.

Here is how I view the list

1)Snow White to Bambi (The Golden Age or the Classics)

2)Saludos Amigos to Icabod and Mr. Toad (Package or War Features)

3)Cinderella to the Aristocats (The Second Golden Age or First Golden Age), primarily because these films all had something to do with Walt.

4)Robin Hood to Oliver and Company (The Dark Age)

5)The Little Mermaid to Fantasia 2000 (The Renaissance)

6)The Emperor's New Groove to Chicken Little (The Second Dark Age?)Casey14 18:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think splitting the list up like this won't work cos there will be a LOT of controversy on which film belongs to which era. Chris1219 03:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Animation/live-action combos not included?

The article says that "The canon only includes traditionally animated features produced entirely by WDFA. Not included are animation/live-action combination films [...]". However, don't Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros combine animation and live action parts? The article for The Three Caballeros even mentions this fact explicitly. What gives?

these 2 have ALWAYS been listed as part of the animated features, unlike some of the others like Bedknobs & Broomsticks or Mary Poppins, which came later. Probably because these 2 are MORE animation then live.

Bambi II

Bambi II should be on there somewhere.Alison9 05:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Bambi II like all the other Disney sequels and spin-offs, that wern't released theatrical, are not on this list. Casey14 21:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

How about...

How about Tron in the live-action with animation category? It probably has more animation than, say, Mary Poppins. tregoweth 02:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The canon is dead!

According to Disney, there is no longer a numbered list; if it's an animated feature, was released theatrically, and Disney was involved in its production, it's a Disney animated feature:

We are no longer numbering our animated features due to the changing face of animation. With live-action/computer generated hybrid films like "Dinosaur" and theatrical releases produced by our TV Animation division like "The Tigger Movie," determining what "counts" in our legacy of full-length animated features has become a challenge. Therefore, we have decided to stop numbering each feature and let the films stand on their own. [3]

—tregoweth 03:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

So,I guess this means Home on the Range was the very last animated Disney movie,huh? - R.G. 06:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not if the Frog Princess comes out as scheduled. - R.G. 20:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nightmare before Christmas

Resolved

If you mention James and the Giant Peach, shouldn't you also mention Nightmare before Christmas?

No, as Nightmare was released by Touchstone - therefore not canon. SpikeJones (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Contredict?

How does the article contredict itself? I don't get it... --Wack'd About Wiki 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Toy Story 3 and Fraidy Cat

I thought both of these movies weren't supposed to be made after all, and now they are suddenly back on the list again? Is there any links who can prove they are back in preproduction again?

Yes, you're right about Fraidy Cat; it has stopped production, so I've removed it. Toy Story 3, however, is now handed over to John Lasseter and the Pixar guys now. Go to Toy Story 3's article for evidence. Chris1219 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tron

Tron is called the only non-2-D animated film in the list of live-action films which feature Disney animation. But Tron is said to contain more of a kind of hand-drawn traditional animation method called backlit animation than actual computer animation.

I changed it to "Includes computer animation." Should be OK I think. :) Chris1219 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Source Material for The Lion King

I think we should include Kimba the White Lion under the "Material Based On" category for The Lion King. For obvious legal reasons, Disney is going to continue to deny any connection but the evidence is very strong. I have no problem with including Disney's denial as well but we should follow the facts. Disney doesn't own this article and I see no reason we should be bound by what they decree. That said, it appears some people have different opinions on this subject. What's the consensus on this issue? MK2 19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just to show I'm not imagining the similarities, here's some sites which compare the two:
• http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm
• http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/y-asada/leo2.html
• http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~tanaka/Tezuka_Disney/
• http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a991224.html
• http://www.50yearsofkimba.com/simbakimba.htm
• http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=6902&si=126
• http://www.inthe80s.com/july1995/animate/simba.html

I know all the similarities, and I do highly suspect it is true, but it's still a controversy. I don't think it's appropriate to put things that tend towards one side of a controversy; articles like these are supposed to be neutral. You might want to add "but Disney doesn't admit this" next to it, but that makes things complicated and we also have to add other highly-suspected based-on material for the other films. Chris1219 09:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating that The Lion King was solely based on Hamlet and Exodus isn't neutral; it's supporting Disney's version. I had tried to acknowledge both sides' positions. The text I had written was: there are also simularities with a Japanese television series "Kimba the White Lion" although Disney has stated they are coincidental. But I think requiring us to wait until an individual or organization admits to an act before we can discuss it is far too high a standard of proof. MK2 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't write too well in my previous post, but what we are doing now is neutral, because we are putting what Disney officially stated: it was not inspired by Kimba. Of course I personally do not agree with them, but I think this page has to reflect what they officially say - or else, (repeating my previous post) we also have to add other highly-suspected based-on material for the other films too, which makes things complicated. Chris1219 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. I see no reason why we should allow Disney a veto on what can and cannot be said about them. If there is evidence to indicate something they say might be false, we should present the situation and the evidence and allow people to decide for themselves. MK2 03:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Disney shouldn't get a veto because what they say is not neutral. Considering it is their film, they are inherently biased. The similarities do deserve some sort of mention (and naturally, a citation), but the links above as is are less than ideal sources. However, there are references in the to the AP, CNN, and The LA Times. Even better would be some kind of analytical criticism that makes the point, which I would imagine has been written in some journal and may even appear in a book given the criticism Disney tends to draw. - user:rasd

Comprehensive information about the Lion King/Kimba thing is already in the article The Lion King. Cramming so much information in this little cell and arguing over it is... unnecessary. Again, just my humble opinion. Chris1219 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's tough to reach a consensus when so few people are discussing the issue. Anyone else want to join in, even if it's just to post what they agree or disagree with? MK2 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's wouldn't need to be comprehensive. Just add Kimba to the list with a reliable footnote. If this article is going to include a "based on" column, it's not fair to exclude something significant. -user:rasd

Do you think the wording I used above (there are also simularities with a Japanese television series "Kimba the White Lion" although Disney has stated they are coincidental) is acceptable? MK2 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hercules and Superman

Similar to the Lion King/Kimba thing, I know that Hercules has some plotline similarities with Superman, but can anyone provide any proof Disney admitted that it was inspired by it? For my arguments, please read my replies for the above section. Chris1219 09:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you on this one. I don't see any significant influence from Superman in Hercules. MK2 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wild is not in the canon because...

Why is The Wild not in the canon?? Computer animation for a post-2004 film is not enough info when it comes to how it is being counted. Georgia guy 20:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, criteria of being canon is to be produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation. The Wild is not produced by WDFA; it's produced by C.O.R.E. Feature Animation. Chris1219 09:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wild is in no way a Disney film. Disney only distributed the film, like Valiant. Disney had nothing to do with it's production. Many films have been distributed by Disney, but were not associated with production. Just a few of these films include Pokemon 4, Valiant, Spirited Away, Howl's Moving Castle, etc. None of these films, including The Wild are Disney films. Not in any way. They all should be excluded from the Disney animated film list. Casey14 23:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

But The Wild was distributed 100% globally by Disney, unlike the Ghibli films and Valiant etc. who had other distributors in other countries. The Nightmare Before Christmas is also animated by Tim Burton's Skellington Productions but released by Disney globally. If we really have to move The Wild from the list, we have to put it in a new category called "Animated films distributed by Disney globally" or something like that because it doesn't fit with the Ghibli films and Valiant etc. Chris1219 12:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It does fit with the Ghibli films and Valiant. These films are all distributed by Disney in the US. The Wild is just throughout the world. It is still not a Disney film, and that's what is comes down too. Nightmare Before Christmas was created by Disney, so there is not comparison between it and the Wild. Casey14 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. After doing further research, I found out that Nightmare was mostly created by Skellington Studios but Disney's Touchstone Studios also helped, so it's OK. The only change I did is changing the section's title to "Animated films distributed but not produced by Disney" - it looks cleaner. Chris1219 09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. Thank you! Casey14 18:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the SOURCE for what is considered canon? Dragon Ball canon got deleted because it provided no sourced for what was considered canon. So unless somebody can provide a source for what DISNEY considers canon, then all references to what is and isn't canon should be removed. TJ Spyke 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all this is not Dragon ball. Secondly, watch any Disney film through the 40th so Disney classic, on this list, and the trailer will say: 22nd Disney animated classic, etc. Disney also used to have their own list, which they have not published for about 5 years. Casey14 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked on the website listing all the films on the Disney Cannon...and The Wild is included(http://disneyvideos.disney.go.com/animated.html). I understand what you guys mean that if it's not produced by WDFA then it should not be included, but I'm getting confusing news everywhere. Also...on the Wild's site on Wikipedia it states it's the 46th film in the Disney Canon. Can someone fix so both are consistent? Thanks!!! Small5th 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The list you refer to includes Cars, which is a Pixar film and thus not part of the "official canon". I think the most authoritative source for what Disney considers part of the "canon" is the official Disney "encyclopedia", whose name I cannot recall, something like "Disney A-Z", perhaps? szyslak (t, c) 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In the booklet that accompanies The Little Mermaid DVD (Region 2, 2006), it also lists The Wild as no. 46 in the Walt Disney Classics range, and The Wild DVD (at least in R2) also bears a Walt Disney Classics logo on its cover. Chris 42 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a promotional stunt by Buena Vista to market The Wild in the non Region 1 world. Peter Pan II in some countries is a classic, as is Valiant, for marketing purposes. The list on this page is for films made directly by Disney Feature animation, not some company that Disney distributes. Casey14 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to either state some of these things in the list, or do new list that state what are classics by there Region. You say that the wild is not a classic, and it was not disney who called it one, but on their website they (disney) list it as a classic, but not dinosaur. I'm not sure where you get the list of classics from, but I can tell you that the list defenitly has short comings as I own all the disney classics and they state on the back what number they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.9 (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fraidy Cat upcoming movie

At siggraph 2004 exihibition, in the disney stand, there were some drawings and paintings about an upcoming "Fraidy Cat" movie. I still have some photos. Nobody know if it had canceled/postponed? ALoopingIcon 11:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, please do not create an article about the film unless you know of news revealing it is back in production and will be in theatres within the next few years. (An article once existed, under the title Fraidy Cat, and I put it on Afd, and the result was to rewrite under a different meaning of the same phrase. Georgia guy 20:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Digitally restored

Is there any list over which animated features from Disney that has been digitally restored?

I don't know, but I believe for the official Classics canon, all films released before Tarzan (1999) have been digitally restored for their DVD releases. Chris1219 10:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

I'm not sure, but I know every film from Tarzan on is digitally restored (they all came out that way on their first DVD release) as well as Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas, The Lion King, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp, Bambi, Cinderella, and Aladdin. Fantasia is also digitally restored. Currently, The Little Mermaid, Dumbo, Fox and the Hound, and possibly Song of the South, and Peter Pan are undergoing or have finished restoration. Casey14 23:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To make it clear, when I meant films released before Tarzan, I meant released theatrically before it. Chris1219 12:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The following films were digitally restored (by which, I mean extensively restoring each frame) for DVD or theatrical release:

1. Snow White (twice; once in 1993, and again in 2001)
2. Pinocchio in 1999
3. Fantasia in 1999
4. Bambi in 2005
5. Cinderella in 2005
6. Alice in Wonderland in 2005
7. Lady and the Tramp in 2006
8. Sleeping Beauty in 2003

All of the other films on the list were simply ported onto DVD or prepared for theatrical re-release from the best available materials (usually original camera negatives), which isn't a digital restoration but a film-based restoration. The "official Canon" films from The Rescuers Down Under on down were created using digital technology and not film. Of those, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Mulan, and everything after Tarzan have been sourced for DVD, IMAX, and digital cinema from the original digital computer files (Rescuers Down Under, Hunchback, and Hercules have only been released in versions originating from film prints of the computer files).

Dumbo is apparently undergoing an extensive digital restoration right now for its upcoming DVD re-release, as is The Little Mermaid. --FuriousFreddy 08:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the older films like Fun and Fancy Free or Melody Time have also undergone digital restoration too, albeit not specifically for DVD, maybe like for laserdisc or VHS? Chris1219 10:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a film simply being transferred to home video/DVD format and actually undergoing a digital restoration. You don't have to restore a film to put it on home fideo (often, the film will be remastered -- which simply means that they take the best availiable source, usually the original negative or a good interpositive, and make a new transfer). Only those films listed above have had undergone a digital restoration. --FuriousFreddy 12:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The eras

It looks like Disney animation has started on its fourth (and last?) era. Something to add in the article? We can then divide the features into following:

The hand inked era: From Snow White to Sleeping Beauty

The xeroxed era: From 101 Dalmatians to The Little Mermaid

The CAPS era: From The Rescuers Down Under to Home on the Range

The computer animation era: From Chicken Little to present

Maybe that would be better in another article, because it'll make things too complicated in this article. Chris1219 09:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in my opinion, it is not especially complicated.

Tron in which section?

Tron are included in the "Live-action films which feature Disney animation"-list, but doesn't it belong more in the "Other animated films released by Disney"-list, together with films like Dinosaur? Evdn if Tron contains some non-computer animation called backlight animation, it isn't exactly what we connects with conventional Disney animation. And I suspect that some of the films who are said to be live-action films which feature Disney animation are actually more like animated films containing live action shots than the other way around, even if they are not included in the canon. Would for instance Song of the South be included in the canon if it was not political incorrect?

The reason Tron is in the list it is in, is because it has live acition for a great part of it. Dinosaur on the other hand was basically fully animated (it had some other stuff yes), but Disney just did not include it in the canon. Tron, like Poppins, Song of the South, So Dear to My Heart, etc, are on their "Live-action films which feature Disney animation" because they have mostly live action, but have animated parts too. Casey14 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I'm still not convinced. Also movies like Flubber and other live-action films by Disney contains animation. There is no traditional Disney animation in Tron. And there are many who considers some of the movies mentioned as animation containing live action instead of opposite. On http://www.cartoonresearch.com/feature.html Song or the South and Roger Rabbit are seen as animated films. Maybe they are following the rule set by the Academy Award: "An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture of at least 70 minutes in running time and where a significant number of the major characters in the film are animated, and animation figures in no less than 75% of the picture's running time." For this reason, it should be interesting to know see if some of the movies can defined as animated features by following this rule. They would probably still be on the same list, but it would be worth a note. Maybe someone in this forum knows the answear?; http://www.animationshow.com/forums/index.php?showforum=8

Well, the fact is, Song of the South, Roger Rabbit, Mary Poppins etc. are not in the official canon in any way. Disney's numbering obviously does not include these films, so they will never belong to the canon, no matter how strong the argument is. That's the (sad?) truth. And oh yeah, Flubber looks like it should be on the list too... Does anyone think we should add it? Chris1219 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am totally against adding Flubber to the list. It is not have a majority of animation. It is a live-action film, while Mary Popins, Song of the South, and others have always been called hybrids by Disney. Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and So Dear to my Heart were also in the Disney Gold Collections and Masterpiece Collections. Flubber should not go on this list, no matter what. Casey14 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about adding Song of the South or any other of the movies mentioned in the official canon. The point was that some of them may fulfill the definition of an animated feature. And the problem with Tron is that there is no character animation in it, most of the animation is special effects animation. I don't think Flubber should be on the list, but in that case, neither should Tron. Both are live action films with some CGI and other effects in them. Live-action films which feature Disney animation should in my opinion only include live action movies containing animated characters (and more than just a small glimpse) or animated sequenses and such.

So does anyone else agree that Tron should be removed? I think it should be there because the entire computer world is animated, but again that's just my humble opinion. Chris1219 10:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tron is a special-effects film. Its animated portions are intended to "blend" with the live-action, and not stand out in a Roger Rabbit/Pete's Dragon way. --24.110.112.169 11:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits.

I removed the "material based upon" information, as there's already an article dedicated to the subject (Disney animated feature film source material), and this is supposed to be a list of releases. As such, this article should be concerned with one whing: presenting the names and relase dates/formats of films. I also removed films in which animation is used to create special effects for otherwise live-action films, and not to create characters that the audiences is obviously supposed to accept as being "animated" (e.g. Pirates of the Carribean, Chronicles of Narnia, etc.). The inclusion of those films here is stretching the idea of what an animated film is too far. --FuriousFreddy 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Thief and the Cobbler dispute

There seems to be some dispute on whether The Thief and the Cobbler/Arabian Knight should be on the "Other animated films released by Disney" list. In IMDb, Disney subsidiary Miramax Films is listed as one of the production companies and distributor in the United States. The interesting thing is that Miramax altered the fully finished film withe elements like adding the voice of Matthew Broderick, after it got the distribution rights. That means Disney didn't have anything to do with most of the film's production. Another thing that is in Spain, the film was distributed by Filmayer S.A., a company neither affliated with Disney nor a distributor of Disney films. So, the question is: does that make the film a Disney-produced film, or should it belong to the "Animated films distributed but not produced by Disney" list? Please express your opinions, as we should have a consensus and put this "moving films from list to list" actions to an end. Chris1219 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mirimax was a Disney subsisiadry at the time. They released the film. The film was produced by Richard Williams and re-tooled by Fred Calvert, not Disney. List it under "Other animated films released by Disney". --FuriousFreddy 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If what you say is true, that Disney only released the film, "Films distributed but not produced by Disney" perhaps would be a better section to put the film in. Chris1219 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's already listed in the "Other animated films released by Disney" list.

To the guy above: We know that, we're just disputing whether it should stay there or not, as a lot of us hold different views. We need to have a final judgment. Chris1219 04:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IMDb contributors do sometimes mix up production company and distribution company, so a listing there is not guaranteed to be accurate. From what I understand, what Miramax did was more post-production (re-editing, dubbing) than actual production. —tregoweth (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this film should be in "Films distributed but not produced by Disney". You can argue with this by bringing out The Nightmare Before Christmas, but Disney/Touchstone was highly involved with the production process and that film's characters frequently appear in Disney merchandise and stuff - it's totally connected to Disney. The Thief and the Cobbler, on the other hand, is more like The Wild. The only thing different from The Wild is that Disney added a few elements to the finished film in order to attract more audiences. Moreover, they were working on an already edited version by Warner Brothers. Before they did that, Richard Williams had already completed the film - he had been making the film completely void of Disney for 10-20 years, and even once signed a distribution deal with Warner Brothers! So, The Thief and the Cobbler is technically not a Disney film, putting it in "Films distributed but not produced by Disney". Any more opinions? Chris1219 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a member of many Disney websites and forums and not once, until Wikipedia, had I heard of this movie. Disney only distributed the film, and had nothing to do with production, it should go under the same list with The Wild and Valiant. Disney only released the film, and has nothing else to do with it, unlike James and the Giant Peach and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Casey14 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's enough talk, the final decision is - The Thief and the Cobbler belongs to "Films distributed but not produced by Disney". That is final. Chris1219 08:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant Dragon

The Reluctant Dragon is listed under the first two categories.

Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons - first feature?

Should this not technically be the first feature within the Disney canon? If films like The Three Caballeros are labelled features, I see no reason why this one shouldn't be, since it has bridging sequences and everything. Esn 19:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disney does not officially say it's the first animated feature - it says Snow White is. If we put all "technically qualified" features in, then Song of the South, Mary Poppins, Pete's Dragon would be in it too - but the fact is, they're not. Not everything has to follow the rules. ;) Chris1219 04:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

This is a hard name to remember for those looking for this list. I suggest renaming it "List of Disney Animated Films", or something like that. It took me about ten tries just to find this page. At least have some redirects.

Actually, it is very easy. All you do is find some animated feature from Disney, like Fantasia, Dumbo or Lady and the Tramp, and then you will see on the bottom of the phage there is a list that says "Disney theatrical animated features" and "Official canon (Walt Disney Animated Classics)". Just click on the blue letters saying "Disney theatrical animated features", and it will take you here. Even Nightmare before Chrismas will take you here. It is a long name, but Disney has also made some animated features that is direct to video too. And there already is some redirects. I tried with "Disney animated features", and it took me here. 193.217.196.36 12:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This page needs more redirects. 67.188.172.165 18:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Edited a bit

I removed The Reluctant Dragon, Victory Through Air Power and Song of the South from "Live-action films which feature Disney animation", and placed them with "Other animated films released by Disney". Both Pete's Dragon and Dinosaur are movies with live action backgrounds and animated characters. Dinosaur are considered as an animated feature because of the dominant role of the animation, while Pete's Dragon are seen as live action containing animation. The Reluctant Dragon, Victory Through Air Power and Song of the South were in their time promoted and sold as animated features, and the live action parts often works as frames or introductions to the animated segments. It all depends how present and how dominant the animation is. Do people associate and identify them as live action or animation? Do the animation has a large or a smaller role? (When it comes to movies like So Dear to My Heart, it only has a smaller role). How are they profiled? As a whole, the three movies mentioned belongs more among "Other animated films released by Disney" than "Live-action films which feature Disney animation". Maybe Who Framed Roger Rabbit should be removed too, but I personally see it more like a movie with animated characters in a live action world, living amongst live action characters, than the other way around. Which makes the live action part more dominant than the animated. But then again, it is years since I saw the move. 193.217.196.36 12:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is, The Reluctant Dragon, Victory Through Air Power and Song of the South is mostly live-action but during the film it switches to animated segments or the live-action characters are transported into an animated world. It's still basically live-action. On the other hand, Dinosaur's characters are all animated. Although it has live-action backgrounds, it's just Disney utilizing a new technique of animated characters blending with the live-action world seamlessly. It's meant to be an animated film. ;) Chris1219 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, at least not when it comes to the Song of the South. Thanks to political correctness, it will probably never be available in the stores, but I suspect the combined animated parts of the movie to be longer than the live action parts. But so far no answears has been available. The same things goes for Victory Through Air Power. And I would appreciate if you didn't call the edits vandalism. 193.217.192.249 09:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about calling your edits vandalism, it's just that this article is vandalized so often, it's really hard to tell which edits are vandalism and which aren't. Although it's been rarely released, Song of the South, most importantly, has live-action characters as the plot's main characters, which bumps it out of "Other animated films". Besides, lists across the web and in books regard it as a live-action/animation hybrid. The same goes with Victory Through High Power. Actually I'd also want to hear other people's opinions on this matter. :) Chris1219 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the animation expert Jerry Beck considers the relevant movies as animated features containing live action instead of the other way around; http://www.cartoonresearch.com/feature.html 193.217.195.164 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Thief and the Cobbler changed to Arabian Knight

I know The Thief and the Cobbler is the film's original title, but Disney released it under the title Arabian Knight. Actually the Pokemon films were released in Japan and some other countries under English titles different than the titles Disney released them under, so since we use Disney's titles for the Pokemon films on this list, we should do the same for the other films. Chris1219 10:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

As I'm sure most of you know, a vandal has been making inaccurate changes to the official canon list. The user has also been vandalizing other Disney articles, along with Barney & Friends-related pages. I have listed the user on Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Disney/Barney vandal. szyslak (t, c, e) 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bambi

Is the "Academy Award Rule" actually 70 minutes or is it more than 70 minutes? Bambi is 70 minutes long, so reaches the required length as it is now stated, so should have the tag removed.Rhindle The Red 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Devil in the details?

Phil Harris‎; The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996 film)‎; Claude Frollo‎; Gilbert (actor)‎;

These pages have recently been questioned over and over about their details. It seems some voice-over credits have been mixed up and characters have been mentioned even in movies where they weren't actually featured.

Now, this was a guy who I had to warn about removing stuff... proper fanatic... but I still thought it should be mentioned.

Have a look, and merry christmas!

xCentaur |  talk  18:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Aquamania?

Which year is it of? 1961 or 1936?

There were issues over this with another editor... any idea?

xCentaur |  talk  19:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• IMDb and Disney A to Z say 1961. ‣tregoweth (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. im off to tackle this nut! xCentaur |  talk  19:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another animated film has been found as well as pictures

Another animated film was found entitled "Fraidy Cat" which is slated for release in 2010 here's the link [4], two more pics were found for "American Dog" [5]

Bambi length

The IMDb says Bambi is 70 minutes long: [6]. However, anon editor 193.217.... says the IMDb entry is wrong, Bambi is really 69 minutes long, and thus it doesn't meet the current Academy definition of a feature film (which is 70 minutes). I'd like to see another source that differs from what IMDb has to say. If I had to guess, I'd say the "exact" runtime is probably 69 minutes and 54 seconds, or something of that nature. That said, I don't think we should use the annotation that Bambi's not a "real" feature film, since it's so close to the borderline. szyslak (t, c) 08:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

IMDb is probably the least acurate site out there. Casey14 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think IMDb is accurate in some aspects and inaccurate in others, such as trivia. But ultimately, what we're talking about is whether the note that Bambi "doesn't meet the Academy definition for a feature film" should be appended to the entry. I personally don't think the note is necessary. If you look on the back of a video or DVD box, where it says "running time", it'll usually give an "approximate" figure, like "approx. 70 minutes". If one source says Bambi's 69 minutes long, and another source says 70, I would presume it's somewhere between the two, and thus so close to 70 it doesn't ultimately matter. A more reliable source would help. szyslak (t, c) 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bambi is even less than 69 minutes. I have the DVD and it says 68 minutes, but I started it and returned after an hour or so and saw the final minutes, and I can guarantee it isn't 70 min. And isn't it peculiar that Bambi, The Three Caballeros and Fun and Fancy Free all are listed as being 70 minutes at imdb, the magical limit if they really are animated features (according to the Acadamy)? I have a feeling that most of the six package films from 1942 to 1949 are actually lesser than 70 minutes. And what about Make Mine Music. A whole segment is cut out from the DVD release. If it is permanently gone, how long does it make the movie? (Also, Saludos Amigos contains less than 40 minutes of animation (some of the film is pure live action), so it shouldn't be on the list at all. But that's Disney's problem, not Wikipedia's.) 193.217.194.10 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the new end credits that refer to the restoration, the runtime is almost exactly 69 minutes and 37 seconds. The new credits stretch that to just over 70 minutes. Since the closing logos would have brought the film even closer to a full 70 minutes, it's an accurate enough number for me. As for the other films, their IMDb numbers are accurate (72 & 73 minutes, respectively), so I don't know what you're going on about. The inclusion of Saludos Amigos despite its length and use of live action footage is a Walt Disney convention based on their own numbering. And to be clear, the 70 minute runtime is a recent rule that only applies to the relatively new "Best Animated Feature" award. Running time for a feature film has always stood at 40 minutes [7], meaning despite its length, Saludos Amigos is still a feature-length film that is mostly animated, it just wouldn't qualify for the modern Animated Feature Oscar. Rhindle The Red 05:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the 2Disk edition, where it is less than 68 minutes. Your edition probably has all the original end credits. But how much shall it be possible to change the running time on an original movie? If one have to add some extra time because of some new work added in some movies, other movies would have to have some time removed because of deleted scenes (for instance like smokign scenes). Most sources are referring to the original movie when running time is mentioned, and its original release. Also, less than 70 minutes is still less than 70 minutes. As for The Three Caballeros and Fun and Fancy, I was referring to the info on wikipedia. And I have already mentioned that Saludos Amigos actually is irrelevant here, since it is referring to Disney's canon. And yes, I am aware that the Acadaemy Award rule about 70 minutes is relative new, and it says so in the article for those who didn't know it. I'm still not sure with Saludos Amigos, it is over 40 minutes, but the total amount of animation is lesser than 40 minutes, so I don't know of it qualify to be called an animated feature. Maybe, if the animated part is 75% or more. 193.217.194.19 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. First, it was the two-disc edition that I used and I actually watched it and I stand by my numbers. The back of the DVD says "70 minutes" and it ran for more than 70 minutes from opening logo to closing logo. I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. (Are you outside the US?) Secondly, be aware that end credits and logos are part of the film and included in its running time. The running time, with new credits or not, is close enough to 70 minutes as to make no difference given the minute timing differences often introduced when a film is transferred from one medium to another. You are correct about the Wikipedia times being wrong for those other two films, but your statement that "The Three Caballeros and Fun and Fancy Free all are listed as being 70 minutes at imdb" made your meaning unclear. The information in the Infobox is not meant to represent what is stated at IMDb, which may be where the confusion lies. The issue with Saludos Amigos is irrelevant, so I don't know why you keep mentioning its length and percentage of animation. It is a feature length film that is mostly animated. It is considered part of the Disney Animated Features canon by Disney. Percentage of animation would only enter into the equation when discussing its qualifications for the "Best Animated Feature" Oscar, which it would not qualify for anyway, since it is not 70 minutes.

Also, may I respectfully suggest that you register for the Wikipedia? You seem to have a dynamic IP address (meaning it changes every time you log on to Wikipedia). If you register, your changes will be easier for you to track and make it easier for other users to contact you. Rhindle The Red 13:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My DVD comes from another region than yours, since I'm living in Europe. And it did run lesser than 70 minutes from opening logo to closing logo, and it says 68 minutes. My referring to imdb when I was talking about the other two movies was just a little miss, I meant to say wikipedia, where also Bambi was listed as 70 minutes until recently. Saludos Amigos might be a feature, but is it an animated feature? I would just like to see the definition. As for my OP adress, I can't see that it is dynamic from where I'm sitting. Could it mean it looks different from time to time on other computers? 193.217.194.138 22:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the US runtime is all that matters. The transfer from NTSC (US) to PAL (Europe) can introduce additional differences in runtimes. So it may well run less than 68 minutes for you, but I assure you 70 minutes is the proper official length. As for your IP address, just look at your previous posts on this page. Your IP is logged on each one and it is different every time. There are a lot of advantages to registering, so I suggest you do so. Rhindle The Red 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe I should get registered then. As for Bambi, I'm still sceptical about the length, since the original version was little under 70 minutes even in USA. Could the original movie have been nominated for an Oscar today? Maybe some experts could answear that. (By the way, now when Zemeckis has joined Disney, a new studio will probably see the light of day very soon, and John Carter will perhaps join the list in this section.) 193.217.194.200 21:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Order of the sections

Given their current close ties, should the Pixar section go before "Other animated films released by Disney"? I think since Disney released them all directly (not through Miramax, like Nightmare), it probably should. In the past, when Pixar was a separate company with much more independance (especially with branding), it made sense to list them later, but given how close they are now, I don't think that's the case anymore. Rhindle The Red 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete?

Is this list, as of today, complete? I can't help but feel we're missing a few things. If its not complete, shouldn't it be tagged? Colonel Marksman 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you name anything else that might belong here? Rhindle The Red 14:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Little Matchgirl and Direct-to-DVD films...

Shouldn't we add sections for:

Short Films by Diseny such as 'The Little Matchgirl'

and

The Direct to DVD movies such as 'Kronk's New Groove' and Cinderella 3'?

216.180.216.66 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)NealP

No. These are theatrical features. Feature films (40 min length) theatrically released. And that's it. There is alread a List of Disney direct-to-video films and a List of Disney Shorts (though there ain't much there). Rhindle The Red 07:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

American Legends

Where should 'Diseny's American Legends' go? I put it on the list but it was deleted so where should it be placed?

216.180.216.66 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)NealP

Well, most of the material on Disney's American Legends is pre-existing material, except, I believe, the "John Henry" segment, so it's difficult to decide whether to include it in the List of Disney direct-to-video films, but I think that may be the best fit. Rhindle The Red 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Other live-action films with animation.

There's other live-action films I know that contain animated sequences, but they are mostly limited to the opening credits:

• Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

The opening credits feature an animated sequence where a boy and a girl are shrunk and flung into peril.

• Honey, I Blew Up the Kid

Same deal here, except the opening sequence involves Wayne attempting to interact with Adam (whose size varies between scenes).

• George of the Jungle

Once again, the very first sequence is animated, with the initial plane flight to baby George's life in the jungle, as shown through the opening credits. There's also another (very brief) animated sequence where the Tookie Tookie bird heads for San Francisco after Ape is taken captive.

These are the ones I know of. Do you think these would be added somewhere to this list? — NES Boy 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No! I previously deleted The Lizzie McGuire movie for the same reason. None of these films were worked on my Walt Disney Feature Animation, which the list is primarily for. If you want to start a new section that is for films with non-Walt Disney Feature Animation. None of these films are ever cited as being with animation (even though the two minutes they might have total), because they are not identified as being hybrids. These films may have animation, but are not fit for this list. Casey14 18:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie McGuire Movie?

I reverted a recent edit that, among other things, added The Lizzie McGuire Movie to the animation/live action combo list. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the animated sequences were produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation, either in the series or the film. We need a source, but I'd hazard a guess that the brief animated sequences are produced by DisneyToons or outside animators. Per previous discussion, this list should be limited to WDFA productions, with limited exceptions in the "Other films" and "DisneyToons theatrical films". Also, the Christmas Carol movie hasn't been announced yet, so I wonder if it's premature to put it on this list. szyslak 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit does not have animation by WDFA

I understand some people are being anal and claiming that only films with animation by Walt Disney Feature Animation should be included. In this case, 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' would have to be removed as the animation was handled by a studio created in London by Amblin, centered around non-Disney animator/director Richard Williams. For that matter, 'Enchanted' would need to be removed as the animation is being outsourced to a former Disney animator. I don't think these movies should actually be removed, I just don't think people should be so anal and keep removing some movies that don't have WDFA animation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.76.131 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There were several WDFA employees who were assigned to work on that production, and the money to set up the animation shop ultimately came from Disney. RicJac (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Brave Little Toaster

The Brave Little Toaster was distributed and partially financed by Disney, so it ought to appear somewhere on the page, but which category does it belong in? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pixar shorts

This is a list of "theatrical animated features". As such, one of two things needs to happen regarding the "Disney-Pixar" section. Either (a) the removal of the two "shorts" columns, or (b) ALL Disney shorts need to be included accompanied by their respective feature columns (ie adding all the Goofy "How to..." shorts, Mickey shorts, etc). So, since this is a list of "features" and not "shorts", I vote for the former. If someone would like to share their thoughts on this before the info is removed, please speak up. SpikeJones (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No comment opposing this, so pixar shorts info will be removed. SpikeJones (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for dead period?

What was the reason for the dead period for theatrical releases between the mid 1960s to mid 1980s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.25.110 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)