Talk:Inside Out 2

Most watch
It is the second most watched animated trailer to the lion king remake Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Source doesn't mention the remake of The Lion King because according to Disney, the film was not an anіmated fіlm but a live-action reboot. LancedSoul (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fun 2603:8081:2300:5F90:39FB:272C:1232:C9E4 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter confirmed it was eligible for the animation category at the Oscars for that year. That is in addition to the substantial coverage of its animated credentials at The Lion King (2019 film). How Disney chose to market the film is their business, but Wikipedia's business is to document facts. Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://thenerdsofcolor.org/2024/04/16/inside-out-2-footage-reaction-pixar-gets-in-touch-with-new-emotions/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Rusty4321 talk contribs 23:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Production company credit
The billing block on the poster states "Disney presents a Pixar Studios Animation film". No mention is made of any other Disney entity other than its subsidiary Pixar Animation Studios. Specifically "Walt Disney Pictures" another subsidiary, isn't mentioned in the billing block. "Walt Disney Pictures" has been added to the infobox as a production company based on the assumption that "Disney" in the billing block means "Walt Disney Pictures" but even then a "presents" credits isn't a production credit, it is a distribution credit - they didn't make the film. Argument for including "Walt Disney Pictures" as production studio is that is how it is done on other Pixar film articles. I don't consider what other articles do as sufficient reason. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Walt Disney Pictures has been credited succinctly as "Disney" for well over a decade now in their films; it is simply how the studio has gone by name-wise since 2012. Countless of films feature studios that encompass both production and distribution duties. Your assertion that "a "presents" credits isn't a production credit, it is a distribution credit" lacks any verifiability. This is according to whom? Yourself? Your interpretation of a movie poster is original research. ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 06:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The other animated film articles getting it wrong doesn't mean this one must follow them, if anything they should be changed to remove Walt Disney Pictures as a production company. If Disney were a production credit it would say that, it doesn't, it says "presents". Walt Disney Pictures, per its article, produces live-action films, and the animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar Animation Studios are released under its banner thus the presents credit. They had nothing to do with producing the film, just releasing it. Look at the actual credits in the film for Inside Out. Copyright is held by Disney Enterprises Inc./Pixar. The actual end credits say "distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" followed by "created and produced at Pixar Animation Studios". Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To add see . Pretty clear that industry practice is the studio with the presents credit and listed first is the distributor. Walt Disney Pictures is listed as commonly getting the distributor's presents credit. The second company listed is the actual production company. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You know you're a legit moron who causes the entire insanity? I don't care about your stupidity, I don't cause about you knowledge, At least nobody gives a crap about Disney being credited and also in opening credits and logo in Pixar and WDAS were all featured Walt Disney Pictures logo in it, even credited as they're involved of the film, they're all also credited as co-production with, so it's not like you're doing anything against it, I begged you and begged you to stop and you just didn't
 * Listen, Walt Disney Pictures produced most of Pixar and WDAS movies you idiot! What do you think who produced it? A24? IFC FILMS? PARAMOUNT PICTURES? WARNER BROS. PICTURES? STOP IT AND RESET IT BACK TO NORMAL OR ELSE I'M GOING TO BLOCK YOU!! 105.158.93.224 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No Walt Disney Pictures just releases the films produced by Disney's animation studios under their banner. Basically slap on the flagship Disney film logos and claim presents. That is the limit of their involvement. They are not involved in producing the films just releasing them as stated in the articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Geraldo Perez Then Put Walt Disney Pictures credit, you IDIOT! it's not Universal Pictures and DreamWorks Animation! Of course, DreamWorks made their films and Universal released them, despite Universal didn't get their credit, but at least they marketed it and advertised it and promoted it worldwide, and do you forget about Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation? Yeah Columbia released Sony Animation films (execpt The Star, Hotel Transylvania 3, and The Angry Birds Movie 2) but most of SPA films do have a disturbution credit "Columbia Pictures" presents on, and also it's not about your stupid Disney's Limit of their involvement, it's about what the film's studio is and their producing in the film, you always hated things the way they were, you think Disney has nothing to do with Pixar and WDAS! well you're wrong! if it it wasn't for Disney in their Animatied films Category, then Who The Hell produced a lot of Pixar and WDAS films? you think that Disney only releases it? no! they produced it! if I heard another word of negative thoughts, I sentence you to be Blocked! 41.141.206.116 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pixar and WDAS are Disney studios who produce animated films. That is shown in the credits. Disney Pictures produces live-action films and releases films produced by the animation studios under its banner, that is the limit of their involvement. It isn't the animated film's production company. The three are peer studios owned by Disney Studios. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures does the marketing, promotion and distribution for all of them. I think some of the confusion is conflating Disney Pictures with its owner Disney Studios. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Geraldo Perez No It is the animated film's production company, just because it is shown in the credits, doesn't mean that is the limit of their involvement, you said Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures does the marketing, promotion and distribution for all of them, and it drives me CRAZY AND MAD! because What are you talking about? Are you a Scam? I thought I told you to bring Walt Disney Pictures credit back on all Animated films, but you weren't listening, and here you are, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures has nothing to do with this, Walt Disney Pictures does the marketing, promotion, and producing for all of them? Stop this! and do as I Say! 41.141.206.116 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand Disney's film production organization at all. Suggest you go to the articles and read them for the detail of what role each part plays. You seem to be confusing Walt Disney Pictures with The Walt Disney Studios, its parent. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jedi94 Help Me! 41.141.206.116 (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * After taking a step back and reevaluating, I think it would be best to keep Walt Disney Pictures out of the production company parameter unless there are some verifiable sources (like Variety, Hollywood Reporter or AFI) that explicitly name it as a production company. This is just to uphold Wikipedia's policies for consistency. After careful consideration, I think the best alternative would be leaving a footnote in the distribution field denoting that the film is released under the Walt Disney Pictures banner, as that is still a fact. I have gone ahead and adjusted the majority of Disney Animation and Pixar film articles to this effect. I think this method should satisfy both sides of the argument! ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 23:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Riley Make the Team?
How Long are we gonna keep the Notes as the End Scene left ambiguous and determinant that Riley did accepted by Firehawk? I'd say 90% on her proud smile at the end, She might be accepted. Happiness is Simple (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I also thought Riley was accepted. But it's not explicitly stated, so it's right to say that it's ambiguous.  There's no, like, set amount of time that we're "gonna keep" it.  It stays unless and until more information from within the film's universe, or from the film's creative team, becomes available, or a different consensus is built. DavidK93 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Pete Docter or any Pixar staff would definitely reveals later of Riley joining the Firehawks later. I can tell that more remain asked question if she is became part of the team by the time Pixar plan Inside Out 3. Happiness is Simple (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Explanation grammars
Seinfield429, why did you revert "Like it's predecessor" and how is it irrelevant? Both movies have similar reception, so that means I'm allowed to compare them, don't you think? Sometimes you guys don't make a lot sense at all when it comes to editing pages. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Making comparison to another film is WP:SYNTHESIS. Also, in this case something that does not belong in the lead for this film. How this film was reviewed is reasonable to have in the lead. How another film performed is covered in its article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Both films have similar reception no matter what, and the guideline does not say do not compare. Sometimes you and others are not making any sense when it comes to grammers. It's just that you guys don't get it. Sometimes, i get frustrated with your excuses when it comes to Wikipedia articles. Just stop with that. And you should know that i am allowed to compare reviews the first film especially if there similar. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a grammar issue, it is a content issue about what should be in the lead section of this article. Wiki is a collaborative project and works via consensus. If you add something and other editors don't think it belongs and remove it, the next step is discussion and work to consensus. What you want to add is unnecessary, talks to some other film, and is a personal observation that counts as WP:no original research. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, how is it no original research and unnecessary?. Its not unnecessary SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, how the heck doesn't belong? It should. Both reviews are similar, that's why i am allowed to compare reviews. Both Garfield movies have similar negative reviews and yet the Garfield 2 article has the "Like it's predecessor" line. How come that come that could he allowed, but not the Inside Out 2 article? It just doesn't make sense. Sometimes you just make hypocritical statements when it comes to Wikipedia's articles. And I just hate that. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It adds no value to the article is why it doesn't belong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know, but both movies have similar reception. That's all im trying to explain. And your still not making any sense sometimes. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is obvious what you want in the article. Other editors, myself included, don't think it adds anything of value to add that comparison to the lead section particularly when it isn't mentioned or sourced anywhere else in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your still not giving me the actual reason how is it not value. Clearly it's considered value because both films have similar reception. But no, your just like it's not supposed the same. Clearly it is. Just stop. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And clearly the guideline does not say that you also can't compare movies from the same franchise with similar reception. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, on that topic, why are you always so strict many times when it comes to Wikipedia articles? Your acting like there not supposed to be the same. Cleary they can. SuperSuperSonic208 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2024
Robertd789 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I can't edit the article of Inside Out 2, but he is a protected article, another articles are protected or semi-protected,
 * You really can't edit a protected page if you don't have a user access level like Autoconfirmed.  98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂  •  [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]   22:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

More reviews from critics
Hello, I am here because I see that the Critical response section, although this one, I see that it is missing some reviews from professional critics such as The Guardian, BBC, Empire, CBR, Los Angeles Times, Deadline and etc. If the section is not there, nothing could be expanded further, so I ask the users and  to please update that section to comply with this type of article as it should. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, I don't mind adding more reviews to the section. But can you select or determine what you wish to extract from them or the way you want to group them (mixed: BBC and LAT and positive: the rest; or: theme; focus; approach?). If it's to add reviews with the idea of adding all existing reviews, I am not sure it's necessary nor recommended; the film has received plenty of reviews all over the world, and even in English only, there are reviews from South African, Irish, Australian or NZ media, and so on, so it won't be possible to add them all. If other users want to add all of those you listed and kindly linked, I am really not opposed, though, and feel free. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just saying that about the reviews to further complete the section, as it seems a bit weak in my opinion. Take for example the articles The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Barbie and Oppenheimer and you will see that their "Reception" sections are much more complete and have the sources to mention as a reference. And regarding how I want to integrate it into the article, I suggest that you review the sources and see what information you can include to make the article much more complex. What do you think? 2801:1CA:E:1411:35BD:515F:D133:85CB (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I might not have time to review and decide what to include from them. I'll group them in 2 sets, positive and mixed. Cheers, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  23:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (and 1 negative, of course) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

✅ if anyone wants to make things finer and more complex or differently, feel free, thanks.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  23:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Box office records
Can someone include that the filme because the highest grossing of all time in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Uruguay? Source: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2024-07-17/inside-out-2-box-office-records 177.25.197.247 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

What's going on with the plot?
Whoever entered the plot of the film into Wikipedia needs to fix it. Why does the last sentence mention characters from the Transformers franchise and Riley being eaten by a monster? Zircon 72 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (vandalism). Thanks.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  08:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)