Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Wikipedia's talk pages are not meant to be discussions for fans, but only of the articles directly. See Wikipedia:Talk_page -- Dtgm 14:33, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Should Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons be included? 2 Smart Vandal 3 The "original" is useless(?) 4 article presentation. 5 Chicken Little #45? 6 Animation/live-action combos not included? 7 Bambi II 8 How about... 9 The canon is dead! 10 Nightmare before Christmas 11 Contredict? 12 Toy Story 3 and Fraidy Cat 13 Tron 14 Source Material for The Lion King 15 Hercules and Superman 16 The Wild is not in the canon because... 17 Fraidy Cat upcoming movie 18 Digitally restored 19 The eras 20 Tron in which section? 21 Edits. 22 The Thief and the Cobbler dispute 23 Reluctant Dragon 24 Academy Award Review of Walt Disney Cartoons - first feature? 25 Rename? 26 Edited a bit 27 The Thief and the Cobbler changed to Arabian Knight 28 Vandal 29 Bambi

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [1]

—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)

[edit] Nightmare before Christmas

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

[edit] Contredict?

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

[edit] Toy Story 3 and Fraidy Cat

I thought both if these movies wasn'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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Reluctant Dragon

The Reluctant Dragon is listed under the first two categories.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)