Talk:Academy Award for Best Animated Feature

Best Picture
It is often claimed that the introduction of the Best Animated Feature award means that no other animated feature (after Beauty and the Beast) will ever be nominated for Best Picture. Is that actually a rule?&mdash;that is, is an animated feature now no longer eligible for Best Picture? AJD 16:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, they are still eligible, just like Foreign films. Documentaries are eligible I think as well. Shipguy 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course they're still eligible. The academy wouldn't say that a film can't be the best animated film and the best film. It's just NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to happen because they have their own categories and therefore the academy doesn't feel obligated to nominate any of the minor best feature films for best picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.253.53 (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pixar's Up and Toy Story 3 were nominated for a best feature in 2010. I think Frozen might surprise with a nomination this year, but you're right a win is probably never going to happen. Verlaine76 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Link
This article needs a link to an official page where all of these rules are clearly stated. Does anyone know why Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss was not in the running to be nominated this year? It seemed to fulfill all of the requirements - it's 76 minutes long and was released in a Los Angeles theatre in October. If it had been in the running, there would have been 16 contestants and thus 5 nominees. Esn 10:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the general rules for Elegibility for the Academy Awards
 * 'Films that, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release will not be eligible for Academy Awards in any category. (This includes broadcast and cable television as well as home video marketing and Internet transmission.)  However, ten minutes or ten percent of the running time of a film, whichever is shorter, is allowed to be shown in a nontheatrical medium prior to the film’s theatrical release.'
 * And according to IMDb, Romeo and Juliet: Sealed With a Kiss was originally released as an Australian DVD, thus making it not eligible for the Oscars. Also, it might not have met the 'advertised and exploited during their Los Angeles run in a manner considered normal and customary to the industry' requirement, because that requirement seems a little vague. It's also required that the filmmaker submit specific forms to the Academy. I know the pages says that there are exceptions in animation, but on the page of animation rules it says that it must meet the requirments stated in the general rules. Cheesechimp 07:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Recipient
Is this award presented to the producer of the film (like Best Picture) or is it presented to the director or is it presented to the studio? which ever it is, I think they ought to be listed in the table. Thanks, -ErinHowarth (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ice Age 3 Vandal
This guy won't give up. Someone's got to block this vandal and protect this page.Crboyer (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Add All Submitted Films?

 * This article only lists the final nominees/winners. Would it be enlightening to list all 10 to 20 films that were submitted each year for consideration?

208.101.200.47 (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)NealP

I think that's a good idea. Now it's hard to peruse the lists. 2A02:A453:C8B7:1:494B:F961:FC2E:4600 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Studio Section
I see that Aardman Animation's film have both been listed twice, once under Aardman, and once more under each films respective US distributor (Dreamworks for Wallace and Gromit, Sony for Pirates.)

Surely for some consistency they should only be listed under Aardman (for example Studio Ghibli's and Pixar's films are not credited to Disney, Laika's not to their distributor, Focus Features). Happy Feet was a winner in 2007 (obviously a bad year) yet is not associated with any studio. Therefore there is an error in that the number of total winners still adds up to 12.

I propose removing the Aardman films from the Dreamworks sections, and adding Happy Feet under Animal Logic which now has a track record (though not a very oscar friendly one) of animated features with The Owls of Ga'hoole, Walking with Dinosaurs 3D and the upcoming Lego Movie. Verlaine76 (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm making the above proposed edit as no one seems to suggest a reason not to. Verlaine76 (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment; it doesn't make sense to include duplicates in this table (e.g., Wallace & Gromit under DreamWorks, Ice Age under Fox). Otherwise, you would need to be consistent and put Pixar's films under Disney as well. Anterras (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Verlaine76 Fuck you assholes!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonKing22 (talk • contribs)

Unless anyone has an argument against it, I'd like to remove duplicates from the table. Anterras (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @Anterras You can't do that! We need this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonKing22 (talk • contribs)
 * Can you explain why? It's odd that Ice Age is included for Fox, but Coco isn't included for Disney. Anterras (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Anterras Because the link to Disney on that page is to Walt Disney Animation Studios (not Disney Pictures!!) which does not do Pixar films like Coco and the link to Fox on that is 20th Century Fox Animation which they co-produced with Blue Sky Studios you asshole!! I swear to god I am going to blow up this website if you push my buttons more. Also this table is also for co-production on the films by each animation studios that works together on these films and would be better if the table was just a score board for how many films were nominated and won by these studios and not have the titles of the films in them you royal nitwit!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonKing22 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think it's accurate to say that 20th Century Fox Animation "co-produced" with Blue Sky. Fox Animation is simply the name of Fox's animation division, of which Blue Sky is a part. It'd be like saying that Comcast should be credited for Minions as something other than the owner of Illumination. Anterras (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Anterras You know what FUCK YOU AND FUCK IT!!! I am done with this, good luck on destroying this website even further you unforgiving prick! I am so done with this motherfucking website!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonKing22 (talk • contribs)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are some titles' names strikethrough?
Namely Shark tale and Brother bear.--fireattack (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No explanation given. I guess the person who did that just doesn't like those films. I've reverted it. Reach Out to the Truth 22:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The list of winners and nominees lists the year that the films were released, instead of the year of the academy awards.
For example, Shrek is listed next to the year 2001. It was released in 2001 but won the academy award in 2002. I think it would make more sense to list the year of the academy awards, or to at least make it clear to the reader that the year listed is the year of the film's release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.50.168 (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BQv3CYAA?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscars.org%2Fawards%2Facademyawards%2Flegacy%2Fceremony%2F76th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/76th-winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140610213020/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/77th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/77th-winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123183103/http://www.oscars.org:80/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/80th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/80th-winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006110009/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/82nd-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/82nd-winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224034121/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/83rd-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/83rd-winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226215926/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/84th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/84th-winners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001025325/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/85th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/85th-winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605174517/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/rule07.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/rule07.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Expend
27 animated films have been summated this year Is it possible for expention (is there list ie a rule whitch limted it to five or can we have more potential).82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Academy rules limit it up to five. That's the list from which the final five will be selected from. The official press release says: [Sixteen or more films must qualify for the maximum of five nominees to be voted]. Crboyer (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Before 2001? And 2007
I've checked and there seems to be no trace of any award being given before 2001. It's not even on the article for that year's ceremony. Also, the winning film for 2007, The Sputnik and Halley's Something something also doesn't exist. There is no trace of this film any where. Not even later in this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.238.102 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2016‎
 * Yes, it was vandalism. You were right to remove it. Unfortunately, it appears your edit was itself misidentified as vandalism by another editor. It has now been fixed. In the future, adding an edit summary will help make your intent more clear to others. Reach Out to the Truth 01:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter. Edits by unsigned editors are considered suspect and often reverted, regardless of an edit summary. Several vandals actually do leave misleading edit summaries, such as "correcting punctuation" when actually deleting paragraphs. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Animated Feature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717180938/http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/risky-business/2009/01/22/academy-awards-controversy-wall-e-gets-snubbed-for-best-picture-oscar to http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/risky-business/2009/01/22/academy-awards-controversy-wall-e-gets-snubbed-for-best-picture-oscar
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913120840/http://www.oscars.org/awardsdatabase/index.html to http://www.oscars.org/awardsdatabase/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Loving Vincent
Obviously we're a week away from finding out nominations but I would like to know where Loving Vincent would be placed, as you know this is the first ever oil painted film so I have no idea if it qualifies as traditional animation or it would needed to be added to a separate category should it end up being nominated. I'd just like to be able to prepare in advance, as the chances are pretty high it will be nominated.--Jack Cox (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019
Hello I would like to make a new thing to this and that is to block edits to pointless edits to this page involving how their are there snubs to this and who is nominated is not important to this document and is just a person's option. Let me know, if you agree with this and if we need to have top Wikipedia users be the only ones to edit this page. -- HollywoodHero30 (talk) 00:04, 23, December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think there is a content dispute going on about whether to insert that material. Both parties need to talk about whether Wikipedia policy indicates that the material should either be added to the article or left out. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, the article is not protected at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I think its time Wikipedia needs to do this and for a greater good. Let me know if we can come to an argument on this please. —HollywoodHero30 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a simple content dispute. Protection is not justified at this time. This matter should be addressed through discussion at the talk page; if parties don't want to talk, then other measures, such as blocks for violation of the three revert rule, can be applied. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The Lion King (2019)
The article mentions that The Nightmare Before Christmas and Kubo and the Two Strings are the only animated films to be nominated for Best Visual Effects. The Lion King (2019) was also nominated for Best Visual Effects and it is absolutely not live-action. It was rendered in photo-realistic computer animation like The Jungle Book (2016). The difference between the two is that The Jungle Book has some actual live-action elements to it. The Lion King was even nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film and Disney has never said that it's live-action, despite what some Wikipedia editors say when they delete the information from this page. Even the Wikipedia page for the film begins with the words "The Lion King is a 2019 American animated musical film [...]" (emphasis added). The Lion King is an animated film that was nominated for Best Visual Effects. —IJVin (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Disnweenie
Frankenweenie is not a Disney film it was produced by Tim Burton Productions not Disney Animations and should be remove for the records of studio’s having more then one nominated in a year. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Frankenweenie (2012 film), it was co-produced with Walt Disney Pictures, something that AFI agrees with. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah pictures not animations studio difference company 92.236.253.249 (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You first said and quote: "Frankenweenie is not a Disney film". Just because Disney Animation is a Walt Disney division doesn't mean it is not a Disney film. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It not a Disney animations studio film it a Disney picture film going by your logic that means every Pixar film is also a Disney film yet you do not mention them under that list Frankenweenie was produced by Tim Burton Productions not walt Disney animations studio .92.236.253.249 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pixar films are always credited as "Disney Pixar". According to Wreck-It Ralph it was also produced by Walt Disney Pictures, in collaboration with Walt Disney Animation Studios, ergo Walt Disney Pictures received a double nomination that year. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Page status
Given the amount of information that exists on this award, shouldn't the page be recategorized from a list to an article? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The LEGO Movie being snubbed
Anyone think we should add the controversy of the LEGO Movie not getting nominated beyond Best Original Song? I can’t decide if it’s relevant enough to include on this page. 2A02:8084:6180:5500:E550:283C:D75C:3787 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

2000s

 * Oh, someone inserted those falsities again? Feel free to delete them.CRBoyer 16:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)