Talk:List of animated feature-length films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the List of animated feature-length films article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

	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 on the quality scale. 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 summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Contents 1 A couple of links 2 Hong Gil-Dong and Killer Spy 3 The Animatrix 4 Possible inclusions 5 How to name films with originally non-English titles 6 An animated film done by one person. 7 Internet-only feature films 8 Die sieben Raben and El Apostel 9 Any Ray gunn rumors? 10 Estonian film? 11 Proposition 12 Glaring discrepancy between the title and the lead 13 Peer review 14 Dave the Barbarian 15 Swans (1985) 16 ojamajo doremi

[edit] A couple of links

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

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

[edit] Hong Gil-Dong and Killer Spy

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

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

[edit] The Animatrix

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

If the shorts are released for the first time ever in a collection on the cinema, on video or on TV, then if would probably be a feature. If they have been released independently before this, and not shown fused together as a theatrical release, then it is not a feature. Just my opinion. I don't know what Animatrix is, all I have seen are the video version. An by the way, maybe the movie Heaven and Earth Magic from 1963 is the first feature of its kind, as it seems to be painted directly on the film. But I don't know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.36.170 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 June 2006.

Go ahead and put it in, and add a question mark beside it (?). It'll enourage others to fact-check it, perhaps. :) I'm not sure if it's acceptable by Wiki policy to do that, but they say to "be bold", don't they? Esn 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just in case, I think I will wait and think about it some time. 193.216.121.100 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this page says that he used cutout animation... the white forms on black that you can see in the screenshots are probably because he exposed the film in a non-conventional way and inverted the colours. That's my guess, anyway. Esn 23:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible inclusions

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

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

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

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

• An Egg Film, Una Película de Huevos (Mexico)

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

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

[edit] An animated film done by one person.

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

Never mind. I found it. It's Drawn From Memory (1995) by Paul Fierlinger. --A 583th User (Talk to me! Thank you!) 5:29 P.M., 1 Sept. 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's still on this page, so I don't know what you mean by "an alternate version"... :P Another one-person feature film that's currently being created (and will probably be finished around 2007) is Minushi - see Minushi.com. Nim's Journey is also one, but it's taking a lot longer to produce and its release date is more uncertain. Esn 23:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet-only feature films

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

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

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

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

[edit] Die sieben Raben and El Apostel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Any Ray gunn rumors?

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

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

[edit] Estonian film?

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

[edit] Proposition

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

[edit] Glaring discrepancy between the title and the lead

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

Well, the edit was accepted by all of the regular contributors at the time and still is - in fact, while the article wasn't renamed, this has for quite some time been the "list of animated feature-length films" - this is what the introduction says, actually. Perhaps should be moved to that title now? The edit is from May 26 of last year, by the way - just two days after this article was created by myself, and the change was mainly necessary because I didn't really understand the exact definition of a "feature film" at first; it was always meant to include feature-length films from the start.

I don't think excluding all but theatrically-released films would be a good idea now - I think the primary reason that everyone agreed to the change is that there is no fundamental difference between an animated film which happened to have been released in theatres and one which wasn't. In some countries (eg. USSR) very few of the feature-length films that were made were actually released into theatres, yet they were widely shown on television and are considered to be classics in their countries. Esn 09:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. My ignorance the matter is also glaringly apparent. :D If this list is a list of animated feature-length films, then I am totally fine with that. In fact, I like that it allows for more foreign animated films to be on the list, given that not all animated feature-length foreign films are released as feature films. But I would support a move to list of animated feature-length films. Then the lead sentence could be tidied up — right now the sentence construction is rather awkward. Thanks for clarifying, Esn — Iamunknown 17:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'm not sure how the opening paragraph could be made better, though - do you have a suggestion? What exactly is awkward? Esn 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

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

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

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

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

Some responses:

1) Ok, I'll link "feature" to "feature film" instead. I feel that this link must be there in the introduction somewhere.

2) A list cannot be fully alphabetical and chronological at the same time, and "chronologically by year" is not redundant. A trully chronological list would be by day of release, whereas this list is alphabetical under the years, and chronological otherwise. EDIT: Ah, I think the correct way to say it would be "alphabetically by year"! Good catch.

3) Well, perhaps this is a case of American grammar's documented aversion to using semi-colons in any form... I wasn't brought up in American grammar, so to me it seems that starting a sentence at that point would be artificial because it's a continuation of the previous one; it does not present a wholly new idea.

4) I agree on this point (actually, AMPAS is the Academy. For some reason, their official definition of "feature film" differs from their guidelines for what they will give the Academy Award to).

5)I'm not sure what a hatnote is...

Addendum: I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you show me an example before we consider changing the article?

Another note: I noticed that you added the nihongo template to Princess Mononoke. I don't think this would work well for the article - I believe it is best here that the foreign-language names be small so that they don't take up too much space (why, you ask? Well, just look at some of the Japanese names; they're insanely long! Writing out both the foreign-language and English transliteration names, as I have commited to doing here to make things easier for the reader, would take up too much space if the text wasn't small.) Esn 05:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the very delayed reply.

1. The link on the former half of "feature-length" is still unsettling, though I definitely understand the need for a definition. Thoughts: Is there a strict definition of "feature-length" (i.e. 40 minutes) and enough encyclopaedic information to justify creating a new article? Or maybe the definition (synthesized by the definitions of the BFI, AMPAS, and AFI, but not the AMBAF) could be given as a footnote. Or is it even needed since the definition is provided in the next paragraph?
2. I see your point. I think the solution is excellent.
3. I am always worried about using semi-colons correctly. I admit I am never sure if my understanding of their usage is correct or not.
4. (space)
5. See Wikipedia:Hatnotes. I think it is appropriate, as is currently done in the lead, to direct readers elsewhere for marionette films, but I think it would be more appropriate to direct them using a hatnote. That way, they would see it immediately.
6. An example regarding register from the bottom of 1980...

English title	Foreign title	Country
The Thralls' Kids(?)	Trællenes Børn	Denmark
Toward the Terra		Japan
Twelve Months	世界名作童話 森は生きている, Двенадцать месяцев	Japan/USSR
Yogi's First Christmas		USA

6. (Cont'd.) Thus the register of the text is even. That is, the text of each cell starts at the the text of the cell directly above it. Also, the tables could be sortable using class=sortable. I am unsure how it would affect the films with longer titles, and would encouarge testing it using a sample of data entries on a non-live sub-page. I would be willing to help out if you are interested.

Finally, I understand that to include the foreign title, you need to make it the titles small. Italicising them, however, is a tricky situation. Italics are a foreign property to East-Asian typography, and some character sets render them incorrectly. I know that italics are the English-language standard by which we denote titles, but maybe we could denote titles by the standard of those countries using East-Asian character sets. Whatever that standard is, I would have to do research to find out. --Iamunknown 02:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave the Barbarian

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

[edit] Swans (1985)

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

Well, Swans IS listed under 1985 already, if that's what you mean. If you mean why it doesn't have an article - there are dozens and dozens of films here without an article, not just Swans. It just means that nobody's gotten around to writing one. You can write one yourself if you want - just click on this link and start writing. You can use one of the other film articles as a template. Esn 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I was referring to the internet in generel, not Wikipedia. There seems to be almost no information at all about it. Which I think is a little odd. Which is the reason why there is an question behind it if it is made in USA or not. 193.217.193.118 16:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is rather odd. I really don't know. It probably had a very limited release. Have you seen the film? Esn 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, so far just the cover. I can imagine there is some with an even more limited release, and which for that reason is perhaps not even metioned on the net. If I ever comes over it as a second hand buy, I will miht see it. 193.217.195.90 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ojamajo doremi

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

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