Talk:Disney Renaissance/Archive 1

Meet the Robinsons
Should Meet the Robinsons go along with Lilo & Stitch as one of the animated Disney films that were critically and commercially successful. Now, I know 66% of Rotten Tomatoes critics liked it and only made $169 million worldwide at the box office. And even though it didn't make $200+ million and didn't get 70% or higher approval rating. It can still be declared a success. Can it? Christianster45 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Egypt and Anastasia
I believe this movie should be apart of the renaissance list of films. --p4 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)p4poetic--p4 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong studio. SpikeJones (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that wrong studios (plural). The Prince of Egypt was from DreamWorks; Anastasia was from Fox.  Though both films were released during the latter part of the "Disney Renaissance" era (as defined here, though I question the term) and were clearly inspired by Disney's 1990's success, as non-Disney films they certainly don't belong here.  --RBBrittain (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also FernGulley, Thumbelina, The Swan Princess, and Quest For Camelot. (talk) 7:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Beauty and the Beast - Crown Jewel?
In the area on the page describing Beauty and the Beast, it states that the movie is considered the crown jewel of Disney movies, and that it achieved more critical success than any other animated film.

"Considered" here is perhaps a weasel word, and both of these claims lack any kind of substantiation. Who considers this film the greatest of the Disney animated canon?

Also, as for critical success, A Nightmare Before Christmas has a fresh rating of 100% on rotten tomatoes; this shows that the claim that Beauty is the most critically acclaimed animated film ever is debatable, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.8.234 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement "considered" needs to have a reference to support the statement. Considering that this article is about a historical period, there should be plenty of references that can support what has been, up to what will hopefully be Wall-E's turn in the spotlight, the only animated film to be nominated for best picture. The nomination itself should be enough to show that it has achieved a certain level of respect and allow the "considered" portion of the sentence to survive. SpikeJones (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this website help -. (talk) 4:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A single link to a single review is hardly evidence that it is "often considered to be the crown jewel of not just the Disney Renaissance but of all the Disney animated films," it is merely proof that a single critic feels that it is such. Citing an aggregate score would be better for talking about mass critical reaction but an article or book from a well respected source would be ideal, something that this page generally needs. UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Box Office Miscalculation
On the chart where it displays the box office performance of the various animated films, it states that Pocahontas made over a billion dollars worldwide. I know this to be false. I checked the source websites listed, and the sum is indeed miscalculated. Anyway, if it had made over a billion, it would have been displayed so on Wikipedia's list of Highest Grossing Films, but it is not.Infoadder2010 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing that. I'll go change it to the accurate gross Pocahontas made. Christianster94 (talk) 2:25, 27 February

2010 (UTC)

Original research
I have placed a request at No original research/Noticeboard for advice regarding my concerns that this article is largely based on OR. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is actually largely wrong and inaccurate more than anything else. I was working on a revised version of Walt Disney Animation Studios which integrated the usable portions of this article, but ran out of editing time. Should I upload it someplace to a temp page? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may create a temporary page in your userspace. If you don't know how to do that, see Help:Userspace draft. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know how to create a temp page within my userspace. I was asking if it would be better to create a subpage at the article's namespace. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oliver and Company
What of Oliver and Company? Couldn't one argue that any films post The Black Cauldron and stopping with Tarzan are in the Disney Renaissance? Did I miss the Oliver and Company part in the first section? But the DR really was kicked off with the Great Mouse Detective and peaked at Lion King and sharped turned and ended with Tarzan. Moonraker0022 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moonraker0022, one could argue that the Disney films from 1986 to 1999 are in the Disney Renaissance. But, I disagree because as good and entertaining as The Great Mouse Detective is, it really didn't catch people's interest in animation as say The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast did. So, the film is not in the renaissance. But, you're right that the DR peaked with The Lion King and went constantly down until it ended with Tarzan. By the way, Oliver & Company is briefly mentioned in the second paragraph of "Before the Renaissance" so perhaps you just missed it. It just played a minor role that led up to the contemporary modern age of Disney history which is the Disney Renaissance. Christianster94 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * aw yes. O&C. In my opinion O&C paved the way for The Little Mermaid. It's like a Bell Curve ya know. and some could say that Frog Princess could be a new spike...keep your fingers crossed! Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Waking Sleeping Beauty, OLIVER AND COMPANY certainly was considered as part of the beginning of the next animation cycle. In essence, the movie makes the case that the renaissance began when Katzenberg started over the Animation stuff. SpikeJones (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify further - are we counting the renaissance timeframe from when the films were RELEASED or when the films BEGAN PRODUCTION? SpikeJones (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the renaissance timeframe from my point of view is from when the film were RELEASED. talk 01:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Factual accuracy.
It was true of this article almost a year ago and is still true - much of this info is flat-out wrong. Hunchback wasn't considered a box-office success, no mention is made of the downward trend begun with Pocahontas, and there's nothing covered here but superfluous box-office comparison tables that _shouldn't_ be covered in the (also rather poor) article at Walt Disney Animation Studios.

There's an awful lot of incorrect information, weasel words (what typifies a "moderate box office success?" in these cases. If you ask the Disney studio, many of the films identified as such were disappointments), original research, and a general encyclopedic tone. I had started a rewrite of Walt Disney Animation Studios to cover the studio's history as necessary at Talk:Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios/rewrite; only a few people helped edit. Let's try this again, lest we continue to bombard visitors with bad information. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article also makes no mention of the fact that Pocahontas was critically panned, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame was "honored" with Golden Raspberry (Razzie) nominations. Also, both films failed to reach the expectations at the box office and are among the worst-rated Disney films ever.  Certainly these two films back to back are enough to state that the Disney renaissance was a four-film series of movies that started with The Little Mermaid, skipped over to Beauty and the Beast and was finalized with The Lion King. T.W. (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Proof of "Disney Renaissance"
Alot of articles are trying to refer to this page in relation to the "Disney Renaissance." We need a notable source that proves this even exist. Simply quoting revenue and reviews does not establish proof. Please see WP:NPOV. Until we can prove it, its simply a "point of view" with a little "original research" to establish it. DrNegative (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Disney Renaissance did exist. And if you look on the external link column, I found a website to show proof. talk 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done! DrNegative (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Both Christopher Finch in his book The Art of Walt Disney (2004) and Bob Thomas in his book Disney's Art of Animation: From Mickey Mouse to Hercules(1997) discuss the Disney Renaissance. However, their version is that the Renaissance began with a 'changing of the guard' during production of The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound.  Instead of the original "nine old men" that Walt had hired himself, the main production of animation was coming from the likes of Don Bluth, Glen Keane, John Musker, and Ron Clements.  These younger animators had gone through the studio's in-house animation teaching program.  If no one objects I can rework the history section with these sources and their information. Cactusjump (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this should be merged in a page about Disney's history, quoting the books that use the notion of "Disney Renaissance".--Elikrotupos (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I still agree with the original comment; a single Christian film critic's article--largely criticizing alleged non-Christian influences in 1990's Disney films--doesn't make the term "Disney Renaissance" notable enough for Wikipedia. Indeed, the differing use of the term in Disney's own literature to refer to the era immediately after the "nine old men" raises serious doubts as to the term's notability, though I think the critic's coinage is more accurate. Furthermore, though I believe most would agree that whatever it was began with The Little Mermaid (definitely not with The Rescuers as Disney propaganda claims), I think even the critic thought it ended before Tarzan (as this article claims); he merely ended his criticism with examples from Tarzan. I'm sure some would think Disney's "rebirth" ended as early as The Lion King. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the sources provided for this article are minimal and hardly concrete. A google of the term finds no good sources in the first 100 results, most are blogs, amateur reviews, and information taken from this page (either verbatim or the list of movies on this site).  Other than some polls on unreliable websites, I have yet to find any source that clearly defines when the period began and ended.  The term is clearly used but unless some reliable sources can be found, I have to agree with the DrNegative and RBBrittain that this page constitutes original research and fails to meet NPOV standards.  UncannyGarlic (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ebert mentions it by name and includes The Hunchback Of Notre Dame and likely Hecules (second to last paragraph)  and Mulan (last two lines)  and possibly Tarzan .  In UltimateDisney.com's review of Pocahontas, they label the Renaissance as the five year period starting with The Little Mermaid and ending with The Lion King.
 * "It would be extremely difficult not to disappoint following The Lion King, the ultra-succcessful pinnacle of the so-called animation Renaissance that had been embraced in the public eye wholeheartedly for 5 years, a period where Disney could achieve nothing but excellence (with the sidenote exception of the good but unremarkable sequel The Rescuers Down Under)."
 * That is the period which I had always heard. The "Return of a Classic" featurette for Oliver and Company attributes it as what started and allowed for the Renaissance (not by name, they mention the films from Little Mermaid to Pocahontas) .  I'm guessing that various sources are going to stretch the period out differently.  UncannyGarlic (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is notable enough but Disney's head of marketing during this time, Howard Green, was interviewed and reffered to this era as the "Renaissance" during his interview.DrNegative (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, look, I'm sure it's possible to argue for a Disney renaissance that stretches all the way up to The Princess And The Frog, but in terms of critical support and as a cultural phenomenon, the era clearly begins with The Little Mermaid and ends with The Lion King. Pocahontas was less well-received (and obviously less popular), and then the ground shifted dramatically with Toy Story's release later that year. The hand-drawn branch of Disney never managed to recapture the same momentum again (yet, anyway). 220.239.203.179 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several of the movies just past Lion King were decent, and made decent money, but not many people would argue they were on the same plane as the trifecta of Lion King/Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast, plus Aladdin. Those four are the movies that put Disney back on the map, both artistically and financially, even if it took them a while to completley lose the plot again.80.101.113.45 (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Great Mouse Detective
Was Don Bluth Productions in any way associated with The Great Mouse Detective? I haven't seen anything about this fact anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egon14 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No; Bluth left Disney while working on The Fox and the Hound. Given that Bluth's studio was actively competing with Disney's own films at the time (indeed, Bluth's An American Tail outgrossed The Great Mouse Detective as stated here), I'm sure Disney wouldn't have let him anywhere near that film, even as a contractor.  --RBBrittain (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This must originate in the fact that Bluth did a lot of mice, for some reason -- from NIMH through the Fievel movies.80.101.113.45 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The pro-american anti-british conspiracy
taking in to account the evil colonisation america does to this day, it isn't unbelievable that the creators would try to subliminally portray americans as good and the british as bad in order to deter children, of course their mistake was in not realising that only american children are biologically dumb enough to fall for such a scam. In allnof these movies (with the exception of Hercules and Mulan which feature a strong villain each) ALL the main protagonists, regardless of the movies setting, are american, whereas all the villains are British. Not only is this portrayed regardless of setting (Hunchback being a prime example as all the bad guys are coincidentially british whilst the 3 main heroes are yanks), but also of family ties (Lion king, Mufasa and Scar are brothers yet have different nationalities). This is also in Peter Pan and The Jungle Book. 101 Dalmations doesnt count I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.160.121 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Disney Animation Studios films
Anyone interested in morphing this article into a "List of Pixar films"-style article but dedicated to its older sibling, WDAS? The List of Disney theatrical feature films and List of Disney theatrical animated features are insufficient in highlighting the works alone of WDAS, and look to have ended up being too inclusive of anything associated with the "Disney movie" moniker. It seems to me people who are searching for "Disney movie" most likely associate/or wanted to search for info related to the animated arm of Disney, and having a comparable article to the "List of Pixar films" article for WDAS is a good place to start. This one on the Disney Renaissance looks like it has the most information that can be integrated into such an article, and an emphasis on the Disney Renaissance subject can be maintained or spun-off with the History section of the WDAS article.

Rebel shadow 04:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantasia 2000
I put Fantasia 2000 on because I've been doing some research and have noticed that some websites (I've linked to one but I can get others) mention Fantasia 2000 as the last film of the Disney Renaissance. Considering that the Renaissance lasted till around 2000, as well as the fact that while it was a small success, it is always put in the Disney Vault with The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Aladdin that it would probably constitute a Renaissance film. Does anyone have any concerns with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmary1936 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rescuers Down Under
I thought The Rescuers Down Under wasn't considered part of the Disney Renaissance due to its underperformance at the box office. User: Christianster45 23:04 1 August 08 (ULC)
 * It was a critical and commercial success. WHY it isn't included on this page, I'm not sure. Jienum (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on the source - I have seen it listed both as part of and not a part of the renaissance. Now if we can only find the ones that say it is, it can be sourced and added to the article with no more discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The bigger issue is that The Rescuers Down Under states that the film IS part of the renaissance, and it's not listed here. Regardless of which way we lean, one of these two articles (and possibly others) will need to be brought in line with each other. SpikeJones (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Rescuers Down Under" was not a commercial success by any means, it was a box-office failure and it is in fact considered the "black sheep" of the era when included, and when not included it is said that the renaissance "really begun with "Beauty and the Beast." Its failure is also the reason why later sequels were not released theatrically. T.W. (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that if it made money to break even (which it did), then it wasn't a failure. Now they wish it was more successful, but it wasn't a failure. It would have been if it lost money. And there have been two other theatrical sequels. Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenmary1936 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Emperor's New Groove
How is it that The Emperor's New Groove is not counted among the Disney Renaissance canon? It was commercially successful ($90 million domestic, $170 million worldwide), far more successful than later Disney features and about on par with films such as Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It was also more successful than Fantasia 2000, which also came out toward the end of the Disney Renaissance. Furthermore, it received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Song ("My Funny Friend and Me"), which puts it in the same category as previously mentioned Hercules and Hunchback, as well as Mulan. It was also a critical success, holding a score of 85% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, putting it ahead of Pocahontas, Hercules, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Fantasia 2000, and Dinosaur, and slightly behind Mulan and Tarzan. In my opinion, it meets every single criteria to be counted as the final film of the Disney Renaissance, including the year (2000), which is mentioned in the article to mark the end of the period. If it does not count, then neither should any of the films that followed The Lion King, which were either just as successful or less successful than this film. TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Oliver & Company, and Fantasia 2000
I always thought that the Disney Renaissance began in 1988 starting with Who Framed Roger Rabbit because of the huge success of the film. Oliver & Company is technically part of the Disney Renaissance because it came out after Who Framed Roger Rabbit (kind of like how The Rescuers Down Under is part of the Disney Renaissance because it came out after The Little Mermaid). I also always thought that the Disney Renaissance ended in late-1999 with Fantasia 2000 because alot of the people who worked on the film seem to like it and so do alot of people who've seen it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.33.11 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Revival era"
I have removed this as a section heading and merged the content within the "Post Renaissance" section. It seems we are the only people actually calling it that and I cannot find any reliable sources referring to the recent or present time as a "Revival era" for the studio. Until then, it is WP:OR. DrNegative (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Animation Studios films from (2007-2014)
All computer-animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (except for The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh), they are 2D-animation:


 * The Little Mermaid vs. Enchanted
 * Peter Pan (instead of Aladdin) vs. The Princess and the Frog
 * Beauty and the Beast vs. Tangled
 * The Lion King vs. Winnie the Pooh
 * The Hunchback of Notre Dame vs. Wreck-it Ralph
 * Hercules vs. Frozen
 * Mulan vs. Big Hero 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

First CGI animation feature?
According to this article, "In 2005, Chicken Little, the Disney Studios' first full CGI animated feature, received mixed reviews from critics though it performed well at the box office". However, I thought Dinosaur (2000) was Disney's first. Does Dinosuar pehaps not count due to the fact that much of it was filmed on location? TSJSwimmer (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The New Disney Renaissance?
Does the "Revival era" section maybe warrant an article of it's own? It's certainly a separate phenomena from the old Disney Renaissance. There's plenty of secondary sources that confirms that there is a second Disney renaissance going on. At the very least, more of this article should be dedicated to this new Disney renaissance. --Manes (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bolt
Shouldn't Bolt be put under the Possible Second Renaissance section? It achieved a decent box-office success and critical rave, just in line with the other films that succeeded it.--209.240.48.138 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you refer to the "Revival era"-section, Bolt is already there. What do you mean should be done? --Manes (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fantasia 2000
Including Fantasia 2000 makes no sense at all because (1) that's original research (2) POV (i.e., a biased statement) and (3) it is one of the films that marks the decline at the end of the Renaissance

The only source currently in the article regarding Fantasia 2000 is from a small Webzine no one has heard of which argues that Fantasia 2000 should be considered part of the Renaissance group of films. But even that article, in having to make that argument, implicitly acknowledges that Fantasia 2000 is not part of that group or else there would be no reason to make that argument in the first place. Furthermore, published books about Disney Animation such as Chris Pallant's book specifically mention how Tarzan is commonly seen as the last film of the Disney Renaissance.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to argue that Fantasia 2000 is part of the Renaissance, because it was a flop. At least Tarzan had a plot. (And Phil Collins.)

Relevant Wikipedia core policies include Neutral point of view and No original research. The point of these policies is that Wikipedia follows or reports on trends in a neutral fashion, it never attempts to set them. Specifically, under NPOV, we do not give undue weight to fringe theories to create a false balance. The dominant consensus is that the Disney Renaissance consists of ten films. End of story. If you don't like that consensus, and if you really care, go get some articles published elsewhere. And if you don't immediately know which former Disney corporate director's famous words I am alluding to (or which film) with the reference about really caring, then you have no idea what you're talking about. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur with Coolcaeser. We need more reliable sources backing the inclusion of Fantasia, otherwise it should go. DrNegative (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am really sorry about the inclusion of Fantasia 2000. With no defined criteria for films in the Renaissance besides box office success and critical acclaim, I was too quick to assume that Fantasia, having a "certified fresh" score on Rotten Tomatoes and a better gross than The Rescuers Down Under, could be considered a part of the Disney Renaissance (with Pocahontas having a mixed reception and Rescuers barely even passing the said criteria). I should have found more reliable sources if I wanted to back up the inclusion of Fantasia in the renaissance. LionFosset (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. On my end, I apologize for being so harsh in my critique above. As you can see, I strongly care about the subject matter of this article---notice who took most of the photos. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

BRAVE
this article completely forgot about Brave and that's really upsetting! someone needs to sort that out!2.218.77.146 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Brave is from Pixar...--209.240.57.248 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Concur. 2.218.77.146 clearly knows nothing about the animation industry. Please read up first on John Lasseter and Walt Disney. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Renaissance vs. Revival

 * 1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs vs. The Little Mermaid
 * 2. Fantasia & Fantasia 2000 vs. Beauty and the Beast
 * 3. Pinocchio vs. Aladdin
 * 4. Cinderella vs. The Lion King
 * 5. Alice in Wonderland vs. The Hunchback of Notre Dame
 * 6. Peter Pan vs. Hercules
 * 7. Lady and the Tramp vs. Don Bluth's Anastasia
 * 8. Sleeping Beauty vs. Tarzan

Note: Tarzan is the last animated film in the Disney Renaissance Era until 2013's Frozen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2014


 * 1. The Little Mermaid vs. The Princess and the Frog
 * 2. The Rescuers Down Under vs. Winnie the Pooh
 * 3. Beauty and the Beast vs. Tangled
 * 4. Aladdin vs. Wreck-It Ralph
 * 5. The Lion King vs. Frozen
 * 6. Pocahontas vs. Big-Hero 6
 * 7. The Hunchback of Notre Dame vs. Zootopia
 * 8. Hercules
 * 9. Mulan
 * 10. Tarzan

Doesn't it have some similarities? --62.235.227.146 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bolt
Is Bolt part of the Disney Revival era nom for best animted feature, box office and critically hit. 82.38.157.176 (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Disney Renaissance. 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/20070927215934/http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/toy-story-3-and-american-dog-news to http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/toy-story-3-and-american-dog-news

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) 23:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disney Renaissance → Disney movie eras – The history section is focusing on different eras of Disney movies. If the article is to be titled with its current title, it should focus exclusively on this particular era. Currently known Disney eras are:


 * 1) Snow White to Bambi
 * 2) Saludos Amigos to Ichabod and Mr. Toad
 * 3) Cinderella to The Jungle Book
 * 4) The Aristocats to Oliver & Company
 * 5) The Little Mermaid to Tarzan (this is the Renaissance that the current title implies that the article, including its history section, needs to focus exclusively on)
 * 6) Fantasia 2000 to Bolt
 * 7) The Princess and the Frog to an unknown limit Georgia guy (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposed move. The article should be trimmed to tightly focus on its subject, the ten films of the Disney Renaissance. The content not directly relevant to the Disney Renaissance should be either deleted or consolidated with the article on Walt Disney Animation Studios, which already covers the entire history of Disney feature-length animated films. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed move. Concur with Coolcaeser, article needs to be trimmed as it has lost its scope of its current title. DrNegative (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT issues
There's something wrong when almost half of the prose portion of the article is actually talking about the period after the Renaissance. Although most of that text is adequately sourced, much of that text appears to be advancing an improper thesis about a Disney revival that is off-topic and has not been firmly established. If there is such a thing, the news media (and Disney) will no doubt proclaim it if and when that trend is clear, and at that time, it would be proper to create a new Wikipedia article on that separate subject. But it is a violation of Wikipedia's core policies (What Wikipedia is not, Neutral point of view, and No original research) to use the Wikipedia article on the Disney Renaissance as a vehicle to advocate for the existence of a Disney Revival. (And keep in mind I am a longtime Disney fan who personally took most of the photographs for this article and other Disney-related articles.) Any objections before I take out the garbage? --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have none. I actually brought it up here with no replies when it was just starting to become a problem, along with hidden notes to try and discourage it to no avail. DrNegative (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objections, I am proceeding as proposed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hercules
How was this film vulnerable to Pixar and Dreamworks? This film was released away from another Pixar film and Dreamworks' first films' worldwide gross was less than Hercules' domestic gross. --97.113.208.181 (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Evan Kalani Opedal

Term
Has anyone notable ever used the term "Disney Renaissance?" We have a film critic and a journalist using the phrase, one in a very short article, and that seems pretty weak. The Disney Golden Age would be just as valid for the article title. --The Vital One (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Disney Revival era
Dose anyone want to help make Disney Revival era page for the current era of animated Disney films. Fanoflionking 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Has the recent stretch of films been referred to as the "Disney Revival" by anyone other than fans? Trivialist (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposing to eliminate User:Terlines's contributions to the article with respect to Fantasia 2000
User:Terlines's edits about Fantasia 2000 are pushing an obvious POV in violation of WP:NPOV, and I am proposing to eliminate them. In pertinent part, WP:NPOV states that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing."

The POV violation is particularly clear with this sentence: "For many animation historians, Fantasia 2000 (1999) is considered as the last Disney Renaissance film." The cited source is an article published at PopOptiq, which clearly fails WP:RS. For starters, PopOptiq doesn't have a masthead. Even the most rudimentary entertainment blogs that consist of three or four full-time editors in an office in the middle of nowhere (plus a bunch of freelance writers) try to look respectable by posting a masthead. Not only that, the Contact Us and About Us sections are completely opaque as to where PopOptiq is published or who owns it.

Even worse, the cited source doesn't actually support the sentence. Nothing in the cited article refers to any animation historians, names any, or attributes to them the notion that Fantasia 2000 should be considered to be part of the Disney Renaissance. The author of the article is clearly speaking for himself. Which means that the sentence is also a clear violation of WP:V (that is, failed verification) and WP:NOR (it's original research in violation of WP's policy against being a publisher of original research). --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, the policy violations are so clear that I'm going to go ahead and eliminate that garbage. The burden is on the editor attempting to modify long-established consensus to establish why their edits comply with WP policy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the new segments in Fantasia 2000 were definitely worked on during several years of the renaissance period. So, if someone really wants to pursue this, they just need to find better refs. I mean, the renaissance period itself is a subjective thing so finding refs detailing how, for instance, "Pines of Rome" was worked on during the mid-90s (it was) should bolster the case for Fantasia's inclusion. Hondo77 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's still a fringe theory (see Fringe theories). Both the academic and lay literature have already consolidated around the notion of ten films during the Disney Renaissance. Also, all ten films traditionally considered to be part of the Renaissance each have a coherent plot all the way through.  Both Fantasia and Fantasia 2000 are notorious for being boring to children because they're essentially package films of disparate segments that aren't really unified by a single plot. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * True. I guess a case could be made, though, for at least mentioning Fantasia 2000 since production of most (if not all--my memory is fuzzy) of the new segments was complete by the release of Tarzan. However, as you mention, it's up to an editor to make that case with refs (and I am just not interested enough to pursue that ;-). Hondo77 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis
While searching the archives of WP:ORN, I encountered a discussion from 2010 about the article being entirely WP:SYNTH, which can be viewed at No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_12. Those concerns still seem to be — it seems that the article uses sources unrelated to the Renaissance to construct a timeframe, and that reliable sources do not attest a well-defined start and end date for this period. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * EDIT: RS do, however, place the Renaissance in the 1990s and sometimes also include the late 1980s. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Specifically The Little Mermaid; it was released in 1989. LaundryPizza03, I assume you mean it sometimes includes The Little Mermaid's predecessor, Oliver & Company. Georgia guy (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't look for sources that mention a specific film. –LaundryPizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Why Frozen is mentioned as an example?
As previously stated in the article, the Reinaissance ended in Mulan, right? so this phrase is jarring: "The Disney Revival is the most profitable era in Disney animation history.Frozen, for instance, grossed over 1.2 billion worldwide". Non sequitur. --Jakeukalane (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)