Talk:List of computer-animated films

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 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 "Notable"? 2 Partially CG? No. 3 Expected growth 4 First Compter Animated Film? 5 Waking Life / South Park 6 CGI Film Rendered Resolutions? 7 Suggestion of radical restructuring 8 Exclude direct-to-video 9 US wide release 10 Release dates 11 The studio and year lists

[edit] "Notable"?

"The following is a shorter list of notable computer-animated features". What exactly is "notable"? Is this NOT meant to be a comprehensive list? Who decides what is notable and what isn't - is notabilty decided by whether or not YOU'VE heard of it? Esn 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem hurt about the lack of response. Feel free to add to the list, just please keep a cool head; your tone both here and in your comments is too antagonistic for a discussion. I think nobody has responded because any proposal would just be shot down, based on your tone. See WP:N for ideas on what is notable. They're all notable enough for an article each, so how do you get a shorter list? I don't want to become like Timeline of CGI in film and television, always constantly changing and debating on the Talk page. —Wikibarista 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's better to have a concrete guideline that may not please everyone than to have no guideline at all... as you said, any film notable enough to have an article on wikipedia already meets the notability criteria, which made the current guideline practically useless. That is why I was a little angry - what was "notable" wasn't stated so any edit of mine could conceivably be removed by someone who thought it wasn't "notable", and they wouldn't have to give a reason because there was no guideline in the first place. Ok, my proposal is this: "a list of computer-animated features that have been released theatrically". That should weed out the minor straight-to-DVD releases if that's what most of the editors here want. What do you guys think? Esn 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there are only two or three movies in the whole article that aren't released theatrically. This would make the section with the "shorter list" very long. However, if you mean that we shouldn't allow non-theatrical release movies added to the list from now on, then that sounds great. —Wikibarista 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean - only films which have been released theatrically. That way we can have a shorter list of the more notable films. And that way there's a clear criteria for what can be on the list or what can't - right now there's not really any criteria at all, so theoretically someone could add in every single straight-to-DVD computer-animated feature ever released to your list, and he wouldn't be in the wrong because there is no guideline. Or on the other hand, someone could delete every film except the three or four that he thought were "notable", and you also couldn't say that he did anything wrong. Esn 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the criteria to "list of theatrically-released films". You mentioned in an earlier edit that "wikipedia has rough guides on what notable means". The trouble with that is that every film that has an article on wikipedia is notable. I assume you want that list to be a shorter one and not include films like Barbie: Mermaidia, and the only way to do this is to provide strict criteria for what can or cannot be included. "Theatrical release" seems like a fair way to separate them, unless someone objects (I should also like to point out that the English wikipedia has a policy of not giving preferential coverage to those things which are important in English-speaking countries - this means that we cannot make the criteria "films which have had a theatrical release in an English-speaking country" or "films which have had a theatrical release in the United States"). Esn 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you removed years from some of the dates. When I first started Wiki-ing, the date wouldn't be changed to be seen by the user's preferences unless you put a year. Looks like that has changed. Sorry about the mess.

So you added a couple films to the top section, but the list is far from complete, and you're right, they're in the article three times. However, it's a nice summary, so that's why I like it. But it was there when I first found the article. We can also make the shorter list "Films that have made more than US$200,000 worldwide." I could go either way on that. So:

1. We eliminate the first section altogether, or make it strict based on a certain box office number (adjusted for inflation, via Box Office Mojo)
2. Begin with the chronological list from the bottom (more useful than alphabetical) and have the by-studio list second.
3. Remove any direct-to-video or festival-only movies. (move them?)

Since we say in the intro, "a computer-animated film commonly refers to feature films…", so going by the description of feature film, this would be a film released in theaters, therefore allowing us to get rid of all the direct-to-video releases. Perhaps they could be mentioned in the by-studio section in the short studio description if they have some feature films under their belt. —Wikibarista 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partially CG? No.

Final Fantasy?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinb9n (talk • contribs) 17:59, June 15, 2004.

I removed Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron as it was not fully computer animated; however, it creates something of an anomoly. It was a concious blend of CGI and traditional animation, a technique the film's makers dubbed 'tradigital animation.' Would it count, perhaps with an explaination added? I say probably not; Spirit's one of my favorite movies, but it was tradigital, not CGI. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 06:43, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Dinosaur used live-action backgrounds; should it still count as fully computer-animated? —tregoweth 17:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we need a section for halfway CGI movies like Spirit and Dinosaur? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 18:11, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, "Dinosaur" should be removed from this list of fully computer-animated films, because it is not fully computer-animated. It's that simple. --80.100.112.55 23:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)Martijn

I've removed Dinosaur—and added Chicken Little, which wasn't listed yet. —tregoweth 20:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sky captain and the world of tommorow was CGI besides the actors, it's another blurry one like dinosaur — raptor 07:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expected growth

For how much longer are we going to keep extending this list? At some point, computer-animated films will have become so normal and ubiquitous that this list would start looking like List of movies... — Timwi 11:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Compter Animated Film?

Why isnt Catapillars here? Did you neglect to do your homework? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 21:18, November 10, 2005.

Clearly, you didn't add it either, so stop complaining and do your own homework. (P.S. there is no film with that name on IMDb.) — Timwi 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waking Life / South Park

Should a movie like Waking Life be included, or does this list only refer to cartoons?--216.165.33.63 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the South Park movie because it was animated entirely with computers, no traditional stop motion animation. The TV show is created in the same way. 68.228.67.30 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed South Park because, while it is technically animated by computers, so was Waking Life and so have any cartoons created in the past couple years. However, since the common usage for "computer-animated film" refers to 3D movies, I tried to explain this in the intro of the article. It would be unusual to say, "did you see that new computer animated movie-- South Park?" If we disagree, then I would propose an article name change. The focus of the article is to chronicle significant 3D CG movies, but I thought that would make the article too long, so I tried to fix it by explaining the common usage. —Wikibarista 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CGI Film Rendered Resolutions?

Where can I find info on the resolutions that CGI films have been rendered in? According to the Computer-generated imagery article, Toy Story was originally at 1536 x 922 (though I suspect it was rerendered at different resolutions for DVD and future High Definition transfers) and I'd like to see a list of the resolutions for all CGI films. I wouldn't want that info included in this article, but maybe a dedicated list?: Resolutions of computer-animated films

[edit] Suggestion of radical restructuring

Would anyone object making this list similar to this one? Rather than listing all films 4 times (alphabetical, studio, chronological, country), we could simply list everything once and allow users to click on the attribute which they would like the list to be ordered by. Esn 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's the proposal. What do you guys think? Some notes:

• This will make it much easier for both readers and editors because all the information will be in one place; nobody will have to add a film three times. I found plenty of films which were only present in one section because an editor didn't bother adding it to the others.
• Dates are given in YYYY-MM-DD format because this is the only way that they can be automatically listed from newest to oldest.
• I decided to separate the "released films" and the "upcoming films" because they're two fundamentally different things, really. There's a lot of speculation about upcoming films and it should probably stay within one section which is tagged accordingly.
• The release dates are for the first public screening of the completed film. This is the system that IMDB uses and it avoids WP:BIAS; the current list mentions the first "wide release" for US films, but I think that we should be consistent and use the same criteria for all of them. Some countries don't have any concept of "wide release". Some may argue mentioning the US release is "more usefull", but we shouldn't forget that Americans still make up only 5% of the world's population. Most people will not find the US release very usefull, so I think the most relevant information is when the film was finished and shown to the public. In any case, the dates are as accurate as I could make them, and I corrected some mistakes that are present in the current version.
• I'm confused about the whole "production company" thing. If you look at the IMDB page for most of these films, there are often 5-6 production companies. I assume that some of them do other things besides animation, but I really just don't know. Also, although the introduction suggests that distribution companies ARE production companies, IMDB lists them separately, and there are often dozens of distribution companies (for different countries). Obviously we can't list all of them. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? So far, I decided to narrow the list down as much as possible and only mention the company/companies responsible for most of the animation. The list also mentions some major distribution companies in italics, since I know that people find this useful. However, I'm really not sure which companies should be mentioned. There needs to be some kind of rough guideline.
• The studio summaries that are present in the current version of the article would be gone. But are they really needed?

Anyways, discuss. :)

Esn 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I totally agree with that. Since you've already shown up with an alternative (and a good one, I might add), I support the idea of restruturation. Sure, if you keep all the vital information by just sorting and cleaning it, and taking care about the production companies stuff (we don't want to put any wrong info here, do we). But that's something that can be dealt with later with much more accuracy. — LuizAlves 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've decided to put it up, since it's been over a week since my original suggestions, and there have been no objections and one vote of support. I don't think there are a lot of people watching this page anyway, so I'm not sure that waiting any more will do much good. Esn 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That kicks major butt. I had no idea that list ordering had been implemented! And I know IMDb is confusing about "production" vs. "distribution", etc., but we really need to choose the company that best "released" the film, over animating it. Unfortunately, you're right, IMDb doesn't make that distinction for us, so we'll have to use other sources. Only listing major distribution companies was a great decision, I just felt that listing them under the "umbrella" of, say, Nickelodeon or Square pictures would help make this list a resource. Maybe we can figure out a way to list that... later! For now, it's great. —Wikibarista 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exclude direct-to-video

Now that CG is more prominent, we should remove direct-to-video releases to keep the list managable. Whadya think? —Wikibarista 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We already do that. The intro says that only theatrically-released films are allowed. All of the films currently on the list were theatrically released in some country or other (or will be theatrically released, on the case of the "future films" section). Esn 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US wide release

I just made a change to hopefully make it more clear to Americans that the release dates should not be changed to the dates of wide release in the United States. Do you think it's a bit too much right now? I've only seen the Americans do this so far, and I admit that it's a bit frustrating... Esn 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release dates

A certain anonymous editor insists on changing the release dates to the American ones. This might be a common confusion among the readers of this article; that the release dates listed should be the ones advertised in their country. So I was wondering if the other editors think it would be a good idea to reference each and every release date, to hopefully put these confusions to rest? Esn 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The studio and year lists

Why has this page been practically reverted to its original state? I thought that the very point of making a sortable table was that it would cut down on the cumbersome repetition of information (which meant that in the old version of this article, films would constantly get added to one place but not another). It's simple to find out which studio has made which film simply by sorting the table by studio (click on that little button beneath "studio"). Ditto for the year list.

I would like to ask the other editors: is there really widespread support for adding the studio and year lists again? Especially when this sortable tables?

Anyway, since there was support above among the other editors for changing the layout, I'm reverting it back to its original state. I think the correct procedure here is for Cnota to explain his rationale before making such a drastic change. Esn 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

One possible argument I foresee from Cnota's side is that splitting the table into released and upcoming films makes it harder to search for films by studio because you have to search in both sections - released films and unreleased films. If this is trully a concern, I suppose they could be combined. Combining them also has a negative aspect because it would be harder to sort only those films that have been released by alphabet or studio. Esn 00:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)