Talk:List of computer-animated films

"Notable"?
"The following is a shorter list of notable computer-animated features". What exactly is "notable"? Is this NOT meant to be a comprehensive list? Who decides what is notable and what isn't - is notabilty decided by whether or not YOU'VE heard of it? Esn 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem hurt about the lack of response. Feel free to add to the list, just please keep a cool head; your tone both here and in your comments is too antagonistic for a discussion. I think nobody has responded because any proposal would just be shot down, based on your tone. See WP:N for ideas on what is notable. They're all notable enough for an article each, so how do you get a shorter list? I don't want to become like Timeline of CGI in film and television, always constantly changing and debating on the Talk page. —Wikibarista 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it's better to have a concrete guideline that may not please everyone than to have no guideline at all... as you said, any film notable enough to have an article on wikipedia already meets the notability criteria, which made the current guideline practically useless. That is why I was a little angry - what was "notable" wasn't stated so any edit of mine could conceivably be removed by someone who thought it wasn't "notable", and they wouldn't have to give a reason because there was no guideline in the first place.  Ok, my proposal is this: "a list of computer-animated features that have been released theatrically".  That should weed out the minor straight-to-DVD releases if that's what most of the editors here want.  What do you guys think? Esn 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are only two or three movies in the whole article that aren't released theatrically. This would make the section with the "shorter list" very long. However, if you mean that we shouldn't allow non-theatrical release movies added to the list from now on, then that sounds great. —Wikibarista 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I mean - only films which have been released theatrically. That way we can have a shorter list of the more notable films.  And that way there's a clear criteria for what can be on the list or what can't - right now there's not really any criteria at all, so theoretically someone could add in every single straight-to-DVD computer-animated feature ever released to your list, and he wouldn't be in the wrong because there is no guideline.  Or on the other hand, someone could delete every film except the three or four that he thought were "notable", and you also couldn't say that he did anything wrong. Esn 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've changed the criteria to "list of theatrically-released films". You mentioned in an earlier edit that "wikipedia has rough guides on what notable means".  The trouble with that is that every film that has an article on wikipedia is notable.  I assume you want that list to be a shorter one and not include films like Barbie: Mermaidia, and the only way to do this is to provide strict criteria for what can or cannot be included.  "Theatrical release" seems like a fair way to separate them, unless someone objects (I should also like to point out that the English wikipedia has a policy of not giving preferential coverage to those things which are important in English-speaking countries - this means that we cannot make the criteria "films which have had a theatrical release in an English-speaking country" or "films which have had a theatrical release in the United States"). Esn 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed you removed years from some of the dates. When I first started Wiki-ing, the date wouldn't be changed to be seen by the user's preferences unless you put a year. Looks like that has changed. Sorry about the mess.
 * So you added a couple films to the top section, but the list is far from complete, and you're right, they're in the article three times. However, it's a nice summary, so that's why I like it. But it was there when I first found the article. We can also make the shorter list "Films that have made more than US$200,000 worldwide." I could go either way on that. So:
 * We eliminate the first section altogether, or make it strict based on a certain box office number (adjusted for inflation, via Box Office Mojo)
 * Begin with the chronological list from the bottom (more useful than alphabetical) and have the by-studio list second.
 * Remove any direct-to-video or festival-only movies. (move them?)
 * Since we say in the intro, "a computer-animated film commonly refers to feature films…", so going by the description of feature film, this would be a film released in theaters, therefore allowing us to get rid of all the direct-to-video releases. Perhaps they could be mentioned in the by-studio section in the short studio description if they have some feature films under their belt. —Wikibarista 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Partially CG? No.
Final Fantasy?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinb9n (talk • contribs) 17:59, June 15, 2004.

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * Coraline is not CGI, it was more like traditional stop action puppetry animation, I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyonthenet (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed both Arthur and The Invisibles entries due to them both being partial CG. Also I am curious, since in Happy Feet there is about a 1-3 minute montage of live action, what decision would be made in calling that fully CG?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluentchaos (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed Diary of a Wimpy Kid since it is not fully CG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluentchaos (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Anyways, discuss. :)

Esn 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I totally agree with that. Since you've already shown up with an alternative (and a good one, I might add), I support the idea of restruturation. Sure, if you keep all the vital information by just sorting and cleaning it, and taking care about the production companies stuff (we don't want to put any wrong info here, do we). But that's something that can be dealt with later with much more accuracy. &mdash; LuizAlves 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've decided to put it up, since it's been over a week since my original suggestions, and there have been no objections and one vote of support. I don't think there are a lot of people watching this page anyway, so I'm not sure that waiting any more will do much good. Esn 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That kicks major butt. I had no idea that list ordering had been implemented! And I know IMDb is confusing about "production" vs. "distribution", etc., but we really need to choose the company that best "released" the film, over animating it. Unfortunately, you're right, IMDb doesn't make that distinction for us, so we'll have to use other sources. Only listing major distribution companies was a great decision, I just felt that listing them under the "umbrella" of, say, Nickelodeon or Square pictures would help make this list a resource. Maybe we can figure out a way to list that... later! For now, it's great. —Wikibarista 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Exclude direct-to-video
Now that CG is more prominent, we should remove direct-to-video releases to keep the list managable. Whadya think? —Wikibarista 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We already do that. The intro says that only theatrically-released films are allowed.  All of the films currently on the list were theatrically released in some country or other (or will be theatrically released, on the case of the "future films" section). Esn 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Anyway, since there was support above among the other editors for changing the layout, I'm reverting it back to its original state. I think the correct procedure here is for Cnota to explain his rationale before making such a drastic change. Esn 00:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One possible argument I foresee from Cnota's side is that splitting the table into released and upcoming films makes it harder to search for films by studio because you have to search in both sections - released films and unreleased films. If this is trully a concern, I suppose they could be combined.  Combining them also has a negative aspect because it would be harder to sort only those films that have been released by alphabet or studio. Esn 00:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Release date changes
Recently, an anonymous IP editor has hade numerous changes to the release dates of several films, citing only the American releases - this is incorrect, as the page clearly states ''Release date listed is the first public theatrical screening of the completed film. This may mean that the dates listed here are not representative of when the film came out in your resident country, or when it was widely-released in the United States.'' On his changes - Cars was released first in Australia on June 8, 2006, not June 9, as his change claimed. Similarly, Ice Age 2 was released in many countries on March 29, 2006, not the 31st as changed. Similarly, all the other changes I've reverted on release dates are to the correct dates - the anonymous editor is wrong, and can be proven so, no matter his claims otherwise, as the evidence does not support his claims. TheRealFennShysa 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Disney/Pixar
Now that Disney bought Pixar and all of the films have been branded Disney/Pixar shouldn't they be listed a s so? I will list them as Disney/Pixar for now. Comment if you oppose. Martini833 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, IMDB lists both of them as production companies for all of the affected films. So no, I don't oppose. Esn 08:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose. These should be retained for accuracy, not changed to reflect their current state, just like PDI and DreamWorks Animation should remain separate. In fact, why is PDI (and the Pacific Data Images article) still listing new films under the PDI header, PDI was no more as soon as they merged, that seems very inaccurate. Anyway, for the PDI/DreamWorks listings we could use the sort template to group them together. Disney/Pixar would sort right next to Pixar if they were listed as Pixar/Disney. Maybe I'll just do it for PDI for now and see how that works. —Wikibarista 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding A Scanner Darkly??
Is this CGI?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnota (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 April 2007
 * No, it's an advanced type of rotoscoping. I think this list is more for 3D computer animation, otherwise it would have included almost every 2D-animated film since the 1990s. Esn 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tables by USA/International
I propose the tables be seperated into US produced and International. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnota (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 April 2007
 * You can already do that. Just click on the box under (or beside) the "country" heading and scroll down to "USA".  Esn 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Release Dates
Is there any argument that the release date listed should be for the country in which the production company is based?Cnota
 * Yes, the guideline is currently for the first public release, wherever it was. If we do it for the country in which the production company is based, what about films which were made between two or more countries?  There's one film which has companies from five countries involved. Also, some films were released in their home countries some while after they were released in other places. For example,, .  Having said that, I'm not categorically against the idea... I just wonder about the solution for multi-country films, and I'd like to know what other editors think about the idea. Esn 06:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

List of computer animated films (United States) should be merged here
Or just turn List of computer animated films (United States) into a redirect to this list. Two lists are unnecessary. Masaruemoto 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need to merge it; all of the information in that list is already in this one, and it can be retrieved very easily (simply click on the button in the "country" column, and look at all of the American releases sorted alphabetically. If you want it sorted by date, click on the "release date" column first and then on the country column, and they will be sorted by country first, then by date).
 * I repeat: There is absolutely no need to merge them. The editor Cnota, however felt the need for a separate list, and when his ideas to make this page complicated and unwieldy were rejected by the other editors (see the discussions above), he apparently decided to create a new page of his own. I actually had never seen that page until now. If you look way back at the history of this page, you will see that until I redesigned it, this list was very long and very hard to keep up-to-date (because any addition to the list had to be added in three separate places, and people would often only add it in one). Esn 03:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot about this proposal from August, but it seems we agree that List of computer animated films (United States) is redundant, and this one is superior. I have nominated List of computer animated films (United States) for deletion as an unnecessary fork from this one. Masaruemoto 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List Should Be Made Like The Animated Features List
The list on this article should be more along the lines of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animated_feature_films Because it is so much easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlauzon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But the current format allows the opportunity to sort by things like alphabet, year, country and studio, so I think it's more useful overall (and much easier to edit than what we had last March). Esn (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was Foodfight! removed?
Just went through the list and noticed the movie Foodfight! had been removed, why is that? Or is it a mistake? GoogleMe (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct-To-Video Should be Included
There is no reason to keep this list limited to "theatrically-released" films, it should be a list for ALL computer-animated films icluding those that were made and released directly for home video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.116.80 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against that, as long as we add another column to the table titled something like "theatrically released" with green/red yes/no options. Like this. That way, it would still be possible to sort only for films that are theatrically-released. Esn (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we get into the notability argument again. Granted, many of these direct-to-video movies are notable just because they are sequels to feature films. I'd rather change the title of the article to "...feature films" than see every direct-to-video movie in there. &mdash; Wikibarista (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no decision has really been made on this and the page is still described as theatrically released films, I have removed Open Season 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluentchaos (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Open Season 2 received a limited release outside of the US, so it should be retained on this list. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3D Stereoscopic notation/release date?
I'd like to throw in a yes/no or date box for release in stereoscopic 3D. This seems to be something relatively unique to CG movies these days. I would add something like this:


 * Computer-animated films are being released or re-released in stereoscopic 3D due to the ability to re-render the source material using original computer-stored objects, or by using computer-aided techniques to fake the depth information and simulate a "second eye". Viewing typically happens through circularly polarized 3D glasses in theaters that are using a commercially-released Real D Cinema system.

And add a column for "3D Release Date", with a date or perhaps just an icon indicating that it has been released theatrically in 3D, like a little pair of 3D glasses? &mdash; Wikibarista (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

massive deletion coming
As this is the english Wikipedia and per the FILM:MOS, we only list release date information for english-speaking countries (that is, english as the primary language). This means that the majority of the foreign-released only and other foreign release info for films on this list will be deleted. Wanted to provide a heads-up before the cull begins. SpikeJones (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that policy applies to articles, not lists. It seems that when listing CG films, it's about the technology, not the language. For a complete list, you'd want to include non-english-speaking films. —Wikibarista (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Numbers
Please,you don´t delete the numbers.I will complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OAV (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for these numbers. I have removed them. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Release date for Tintin
Hi, I'm new to this, so don't want to step on any toes and am not sure how to make edits myself. I've read throught this discussion page for this article and it seems that there is an acknowledged inconsistancy in the way the releases dates in the article. I've noticed that the release date for Tintin is the American one although it has already been on general release in Europe for a while. I think it should be moved from the "upcoming films" list into the "released films" list with the release date of October 22 2011 (which was the first public theatrical screening of the completed film as per the Wikipedia page for the film itslef). Hopefully someone who reads this post can make the correction as I really have no idea how to!! Thanks 90.218.38.119 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Live-action/CG hybrids, direct to video
While browsing the list, I saw "Stuart Little" and the sequels on it, as well as The Smurfs 1 and 2. I would think that films like that should be removed, or at least moved to a separate section in the article for "Live-Action/CG Hybrid Films". The Garfield movies aren't on the list (and shouldn't be,) and Stuart Little and The Smurfs shouldn't be either. I presume Stuart Little and other titles are often added/deleted due to some editors not following the requirements for the list.

I WOULD like to see a separate section for movies like Garfield, The Smurfs, Stuart Little, Yogi Bear, etc.; where the primary character(s) are animated in CG and placed into a live-action world. There should be some form of cut-off, however, as ideally something like Star Wars (Jar-Jar) or Lord of the Rings (Gollum) wouldn't qualify for such a list. I think Dinosaur is a unique example, and should probably be included in the "full CG" list, as ALL characters are animated (even if the backgrounds are live-action.) Happy Feet is another 'rulebreaker', 99% of the movie is CG except for one sequence. I think there was a short live-action broadcast in Wall-E as well, but again, 99% of the film is CG. Dinosaur, Happy Feet, and Wall-E should all be in the main list.

Maybe there could be a Direct-To-Video section as well. Otherwise, I'd say that direct sequels to theatrically released films could be included in the main list (e.g., Open Season 2-3, Happily N'Ever After 2.) At the same time, cheap direct-to-video titles shouldn't be in the main list, such as Chop Kick Panda (knockoff of Kung Fu Panda.)98.162.209.39 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * or it need additonal column. It can be added. 31.209.153.12 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ballerina/Leap!
Should the film Ballerina be included in this list? I would have added it myself, but I'm a little unsure how to go about it: it has been released in Canada and France already, but it will be re-released in USA in August 2017 under an alternative name, Leap!. What do you think? TheFinkie (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add it under the original title and release date. Trivialist (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming films: TBA films
Should any computer-animated film marked TBA be added to the 'Upcoming films' list, or are only films with announced release dates allowed? —Sir Beluga 19:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If it's only "TBA," it probably hasn't entered production yet, so I would say no. Trivialist (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

These tables aren't chronologically unsortable
When you try to sort the tables by date of release, it's not possible due to the syntax used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y5GR (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Title change
Here's the thing: I would like to change the title. I am in the process of making an article of all films that are partially or fully computer-animated. This means that Encanto and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 are now going to be in the same list, because both Mirabel Madrigal and Sonic the Hedgehog are computer-animated. Maybe we should change the title to List of fully computer-animated films. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)