Talk:List of Disney+ original films

More shorts
What about new Wreck-It Ralph and Zootopia short films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.185.156 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Fox Family
The removal of Fox Family as the named production unit for “Home Alone,” “Night at the Museum,” “Cheaper by the Dozen” and “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” after Variety article states that it is developing them is WP:SYNTHESIS. Variety states: "Fox’s footprint in comic book, family and animation fare is disappearing from the theatrical marketplace and moving onto Disney Plus, set to launch in November. Iger told investors that “reimaginings” of Fox library titles like “Home Alone,” “Night at the Museum,” “Cheaper by the Dozen” and “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” are all being ordered for the digital platform. Fox Family chief Vanessa Morrison is overseeing these projects." There have been two mentions of Fox Family since the Disney take over, the source indicating assignment (above) and one about Fox Family division president Vanessa Morrison being promoted to head of all streaming production. A promotion does not necessarily mean the end of the Fox Family, it still might be part of her direct reports as most of its projects were moved to streaming (Disney Plus per above quote). Any more than Disney Parks, Experiences and Products dissolved with Disney PEP chair Chapek appointment as Disney Co. CEO. Nor does the cite of 20th Century Studio (2CS) as the production company, since Fox Family is a part/division of 2CS, negate Fox Family involvement. A Fox Family credit automatically includes 2CS due to its division status. Spshu (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton and Aladdin = Specials?
Would Hamilton and the upcoming Aladdin broadcast count as specials? Would rather start this discussion here as opposed to me making the changes and there's disagreement. Rusted AutoParts 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not call them specials, they have all the attributes of a feature film, the fact that they were filmed on a stage is not even special, because so where some Lars von Trier films. Hamilton was even going to premiere at the theatres, specials do not get theatrical release. Picsovina (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the Universe and One Day at Disney
Marvel Studios: Expanding the Universe (Removed by Picsovina for "no Dplus billing") and One Day at Disney (Removed by Picsovina for "related to tv show, moving to tv page") missing. What does no billing mean for Expanding the Universe? One Day at Disney should stay in both tv show and film page as it is a documentary with attached tv show. Anush2209 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

MULAN (2020)
Mulan is still going to be released in select North American theaters that re-opened simultaneously with Disney+, therefore not really making it a "Disney+ original film". So, it shouldn't be in this article! (Source: https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/disney-mulan-decision-movie-theaters-explainer) -- Cody Fearless-Lee (talk) - 10:01PM - August 10, 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the thing, this source you brought does indeed contain what you claim, HOWEVER it is one of the scarce few sources that states that some US theaters will play Mulan, outside of Twitter or other easily editable sources. This claim that "some US theaters will play Mulan" is just not strongly supported by many noteworthy sources. Honestly, I would be more on your side if this bit of info is elaborated on more, or at least mentioned in high level news sources like The Hollywood Reporter or Variety. Complex.com is not what I, or Wikipedia, can truly consider a high level, trustworthy source. I am sorry, but for now on, we can not include the idea of "some US theaters will play Mulan" because few sources barely mention it, nor can it be viewed as a theatrical release, due to the lack of substantial trustworthy sources. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Language
Do we really need a column for language if it's all English? I would understand if there were some content that was in different languages, but it's all in English. Skyshot16 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Original films
a change like that I feel requires a consensus. Please present the reason why these films need to be listed separately from the other D+ films. Rusted AutoParts 05:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think that a better course of action required is to improve the wording. Artemis Fowl, Hamilton, The One and Only Ivan, and Mulan are not identified as Disney+ original films on the service platform itself. They were intended to be theatrical films with planned release dates by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures–and in the case of Mulan–still partially is. This is unlike films such as Lady and the Tramp and Togo, for instance, which were created exclusively for Disney+ and are preceded by a "Disney+ Original" title card when they are viewed. However, since they are all direct Disney+ releases as you've mentioned, I decided not to remove them entirely from inclusion, and instead only tried to seperate them. I feel very strongly though that we should at least accommodate the language so that it differentiates films that were produced for Disney+ from those that were just distributed on Disney+ due to external factors. Any ideas? ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 06:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What if the page was to be renamed something like “List of Disney+ exclusive films” or something of that caliber? Rusted AutoParts  06:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * pinging some recurring contributors to the page for input. Rusted AutoParts  06:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed several times with different editors, especially with the Mulan remake, but has never reached a clear consensus. I do know that, with Coronavirus essentially dictating whether some films skip theaters or drop on streaming, it does raise the above particular issue. I am in favor of a name change, similar to "List of Disney+ exclusive films", but in all honesty, I do not think any consensus to this situation will stick strongly enough, leading to several reopenings of this discussion. I hope my response is understandable enough. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Disney+ original film" is a brand and inclusion in this article should be defined by Disney saying a film is a Disney+ original film. It needs to be made clear what the scope of the article is in the lead and the article should only include those films so branded. It shouldn't be necessary to rename the article as long as the inclusion scope is clear in the article itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A "rename" (and thus a WP:SCOPE refinement) might be in order in this case IMO. A "Disney+ original" does imply that the film was produced with debut release on the service itself in mind. Clearly, that doesn't cover things like Mulan or Artemis Fowl which were produced with the intention of a theatrical release and then were "redirected" to Disney+. I have no idea what the name should be changed to. But "List of Disney+ original films" seems... "imprecise" in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't rename the article. Place them in a separate section for exclusives, like we do with all the other streaming services. This isn't the first time a streaming service is airing content that was initially intended for theatrical release or for other networks. When that happens, we usually have a section for "Acquired" or "Exclusive" etc, but the article titles continue to use "original". This has been the case for all the other streaming services including Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+ etc. And Disney+ is no different. We should continue with the existing convention. Otherwise, we'd have to rename all those other streaming services articles as well, which will open other problems by making it too broad. — Starforce13  15:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is still a little different from the base idea of "Acquired". With Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Apple TV+, "Acquired" means they bought the distribution rights to the film, but did NOT participate in any production work. Basically, they distributed the film, but did not make the film, buying it from another company. For example, the Greyhound film, starring Tom Hanks, that came out this year, that was produced and created by Sony, but Apple TV+ acquired the distribution rights, after Sony sold it to them. With Disney+ films like Mulan or Artemis Fowl, they were not really acquired by another company. They are still Disney produced films released by Disney. So, the idea of "Acquired" does not really work here. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I gathered all of the films that were filmed for a theatrical release, but ended up debuting on Disney+: Noelle, Artemis Fowl, Hamilton, Magic Camp, The One and Only Ivan, and Mulan. This is over half of the films released on Disney+, under the "Feature films" section. Unlike other streaming services, where a film can be "Acquired" from a theatrical business, Disney is more or less using their platform to just release the films, instead of pushing for more further delays. I do not agree with a section titled "Acquired", but maybe a note on each of these films that indicates "A theatrical release was planned, but canceled", similar to the note Mulan currently has on this page. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do agree these films should be put into a separate section. But 'Feature films' seems clunky as a header – probably need a better header here. I also think that section should have a sentence or two at the top (above the table) explaining what these films are (preferably with some kind of sourcing) – IOW, the "scope" of that section should be clearly defined. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. "Feature films" is really vague on describing the section. I am in favor of a sub-section titled "Previous theatrical exhibition films" or something like it to describe the films that did not start off as Disney+ original programming. I do, however, echo my previous statement that any consensus made here will be nearly impossible to enforce for long, as anyone can create a solid argument for several different solutions to this issue. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like 'Diverted feature films'?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More like "Films that diverted theaters" or "Diverted Theatrical Feature Films". I do highly suggest others reply to this specific solution before you or I do any kind of changes to the section. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I was gonna suggest "Acquired films" be the title of the section, but for the most part it would sound like Disney acquiring titles from...Disney. With the exception of Black Beauty. Rusted AutoParts 20:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I stated earlier. These above films were not really acquired from a different company. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some potential section titles
 * Exclusive Walt Disney Studios releases
 * Exclusive Disney Studios releases
 * Exclusive theatrical releases
 * Diverted feature films
 * Diverted theatrical feature films
 * Films originally intended for theatrical release
 * Although "Films originally intended for theatrical release" is long, I kinda prefer it because it's clear and unambiguous. But I'm just spitballing here to see if either of those titles work. — Starforce13  21:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would work – a wordy header, but clear and accurate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of "Films originally intended for theatrical release", as a sub-section for "Feature films". Cardei012597 (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I like this title too. Sure, it might be wordy but it explains precisely what the subject is. ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 03:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * How about naming them Originals and Non-Originals? Far shorter titles and we could apply it to the docu section too because Dolphin Reef was also intended for theatrical release. We could also add a short text describing what a non-original is under the title, like there is one under the Specials section. Picsovina (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the new separation, however, Noelle and Magic Camp are odd titles out. While they were originally intended for theatres, they were diverted to Disney+ quite early on and are labelled as Disney+ originals. Whereas, the others aren't labelled as originals and were diverted as a result of COVID. I still view those two as Disney+ originals? Because to be fair, Stargirl was also planned for theatres. SatDis (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These should be classified as Disney+ originals: Noelle, Timmy Failure, Stargirl, Magic Camp - announced for Disney+ as exclusives in February 2018, far ahead of release (2019 and 2020). They were only intended as theatrical very early on into the production and I think there should be a distinction.
 * Theatrical films: Artemis Fowl, Hamilton, The One and Only Ivan, Mulan - only announced to be shifted to Disney+ between April and August 2020, much closer to the films' arrivals. SatDis (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think if a film went as far as to get a theatrical release date, before getting pulled, then it should be in that section, despite when or why it was shifted to Disney+.
 * To answer 's question, "Non-original" is too broad and would cover basically every movie on Disney+, including the old ones, since they weren't developed for Disney+. The section would be ambiguous and people would be tempted to add movies like Avatar, Avengers, and they would be right because those are not Disney+ originals. — Starforce13  00:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Can we include a description underneath the heading specifying these titles were attached to a release date? Or a hidden note? As long as editors are aware that this is the protocol we're going with. SatDis (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Good point. I've added the description to avoid confusion. It had come up in the discussion earlier as well. — Starforce13  01:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, Ok, I have a new suggestion. How about Originals and Streaming exclusively? The lengthy title bothers me, and actually this is the wording the posters use for these films. Picsovina (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I like that, especially if that's what the movie posters use. SatDis (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a suggestion. How about the streaming exclusively films are put with the originals films and their can be a note next to films release date for if a film was going to be released in theaters or if a film was released in theaters in other places.

- TheDeadRatInTheCornerOfMyRoom52 (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I agree with the restoration Unnamed anon made by putting all films back together with the shifted ones being given a note. It’s a bit egregious to have all these tables. Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The genre given for the film "Star Wars Biomes" is given as ASMR, and that acronym links to the article on Autonomous sensory meridian response. I don't know what the link is supposed to be.

Studio
I'm proposing to get rid of the Studio column in this article. I was looking at List of Netflix original films and List of HBO Max original programming, and neither of them have the Studio column. You can also find the studio in the independent articles for the movies, so there's really no use in my opinion. Skyshot16 (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We had a similar discussion on the HBO Max page, the result of that being the studio column (or "production conpany" column as it was called there) getting removed. We felt it was overkill and as you said they can be easily be found in the film pages or the source articles. Apd9696 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. The way I thought of it originally was to show which movies were simply from Disney / Pixar / Marvel / Disney Channel, but it has grown beyond that to include every studio involved, which I believe is overkill, especially with more external productions now. This would have to be deleted from original series page too.SatDis (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I kind of got used to it now, but I support removal. Picsovina (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Cruella
This article identifies the movie as a Disney+ movie. Rusted AutoParts 09:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess it can be added as it is verifiable. It is a bit strange that there hasn't been any confirmation of the film going to Disney+ but as of last November it was said that Cruella, Peter Pan & Wendy, and Pinocchio were being considered for Disney+ premieres. The last two were confirmed to be premiering on Disney+ on Investor Day, but there's been nothing about Cruella since November. The source from November states that at the time "no final decision has been made", but things could have changed in the space of 2 months. It is also possible that it could be a typo, but that's very unlikely. I think there's enough evidence for it to be added here, especially as sometimes deals that are close to being done in the film industry aren't confirmed until there's a passing mention in a future article (an example that comes to mind is The Tomorrow War, which was seemingly confirmed to be acquired by Amazon Studios the following week in an article not specifically about the film). But it's quite odd that it hasn't been made absolutely clear that it will move to Disney+. Apd9696 (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe this is too pre-emptive of a decision. While Deadline is a reliable source, no other major news outlet has reported of it and even The Tomorrow War was reported by multiple trades about the dealing. Disney also just had made many release schedule changes in their release calendar on January 22 where Cruella is seen to remain scheduled for a theatrical release. Therefore, it makes little sense for the decision of Cruella to be moved to Disney+ to not have been decided with the rest of the release schedule changes. Of course, the likelihood of a streaming component is highly likely, but since Disney hasn't announced it themselves and they have always announced these changes from Artemis Fowl to Hamilton to The One and Only Ivan, it feels too early to add this. LFLEncycolpedia (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To add on to my updated belief that Cruella shouldn't be added on this page until announced as so by Disney, while Deadline is a reliable source, passing mentions do not justify a swirling rumour that has had no confirmation by Disney (even when they're finally starting their promotional campaign for it). Cruella has been also mentioned in articles by Variety and The Hollywood Reporter post the Deadline article with neither mentioning that their sources have stated the shift to Disney+ in any way. In addition, Walt Disney Studios' most recent release calendar dated February 10 published by The Walt Disney Studios official website still has it scheduled for a theatrical release on May 28, 2021, which would define as the most updated decision on Cruella's release. To add on top of this, if Cruella had been shifted to Disney+, as mainly rumoured with only a passing mention as the most concrete evidence by Deadline, Disney would definitely start promotions for the film announcing a Disney+ shift with the teaser poster released today including the Disney+ logo to reveal that Cruella will be heading to Disney+ like all other teaser or main posters for films that have moved to Disney+ from theatrical in the past. Since that wasn't the case, it would point to the fact that Disney is still scheduling it for a theatrical release as their calendar states. LFLEncycolpedia (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I totally understand your reasoning, but I don't get why Deadline, one of the main entertainment news websites, would publish false information. The poster released today indicated neither a Disney+ release nor a theatrical release, just "May 2021". A trailer will be released tomorrow from what I hear, which will very probably confirm whether the film is going to theaters or Disney+. A decision on Cruella has probably already been made within the studio, the information just hasn't been released to the press yet, even though industry insiders, including Deadline writers, probably have some idea about all this, hence the mention in passing. What I think is best is we wait until when the trailer's out and take it from there, and if you insist we can leave it off the page until then. Apd9696 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides it’s not like the articles can’t be adjusted if the trailer drops tomorrow and it says “coming soon to theatres” or is doing a simultaneous theatre and digital release. As of right this moment though we have a source that identifies it as a Disney+ film. Rusted AutoParts  22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Well the trailer had dropped and it has proven to be less than helpful. No indication about theatrical OR streaming release, just that it’s releasing May 28. Stalemate continues. Rusted AutoParts 16:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. As Forbes states nicely, "the marketing material neither states “only in theaters” or “coming to Disney+.” Its exhibition destination seems to (understandably) be in limbo." We'll just have to wait and see how bad Covid still is by April/May for a likely definitive stance by Disney. LFLEncycolpedia (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's available on Disney+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1DE0:8FB0:2D8F:48E4:D0D6:C026 (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bring back the "Studio" section
I believe that we need to bring back the "Studio" section of List of Disney+ original films. ZX2006XZ (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC) ZX2006XZ talk 12 November 2021, 15:18 (UTC)


 * Personally I dont mind this. But would be good if some frequent editors also told their opinion. Picsovina (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Then why were you taking the section off?! ZX2006XZ (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Because there was no consensus. I saw other editors removing it. In such cases there has to be a discussion. Picsovina (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

How can I start a discussion ZX2006XZ (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Aladdin: Live from the West End
Are we sure this is still coming out? It was supposed to come out in 2020, then in 2021, and now it's supposed to come out in 2022. We don't really have much confirmation in the first place from official sources. Skyshot16 (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I made this comment nearly two years ago, and it's still silent about Aladdin. If anybody opposes, reply but I will be removing it shortly if there's no response. Skyshot16 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What about "The Rescue"?
Nat Geo doc about the Thai cave rescue that drops on Disney+ in December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2507:470E:344B:FCAE:2BA9:CCBB (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Needs to be added to regional originals I guess Anush2209 (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Simultaneous release
What should be done regarding films (and series) who are being released on Disney+ and Disney Channel/Disney Junior at the same time? BestDaysofMusic (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Simultaneous releases and Premier Access
Okay, I noticed that there is a simultaneous release section for this article. However, the Premier Access section has been split into its own article. Does this seem, I don't know...weird?

Pinging, along with , and.

ZX2006XZ (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Considering it's low amount, and the lack of evidence to provide that they will continue this line soon, I say we merge that into this one. Iamnoahflores (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I already fixed. I changed the Premier Access page sp it now focuses on ALL Disney productions tgat were released on D+ and somewhere else at the same time. BestDaysofMusic (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Animation345 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)20th Century Studios and 20th Century Animation will be involved for the seventh Ice Age movie and the third Rio movie. All subsequent 20th Century Animation projects were released by 20th Century Studios.


 * If that's the case, then where's the source? ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Disney Animation's First Disney+ original movie
Disney Animation's First Disney+ original movie will be a sequels like DisneyToon 1994-2015? 46.191.178.209 (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)