Talk:List of highest-grossing live-action/animated films/Archive 1

Old talk
i decide to add the talk for the animated  page below just to show peole where this page came form

sponge out of water
I got a question Sponge Out of Water should it be counted as it? as it is a liveaction- animated I do think it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, from the trailer it looks like a lot of live-action, it's not like WALL-E or Happy Feet which have a little live-action sequences, we will see how it goes. DCF94 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

rules
Is there a rule like 60% of the film must be animated or something

I think the discussion related to "Sponge Out Of Water" is similar, if not identical to the earlier discussion regarding "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". See discussion above. I don't think "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was reinstated on this page. And then there was the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" movie although I doubt it earned anything near the $329,803,958 (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=whoframedrogerrabbit.htm) earned by Roger. Telewski (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Rocky and Bullwinkle
Rocky and Bullwinkle  gross  $35,134,820 WW And the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show  franchise (if counted as one) has made over $300 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting regarding Rocky & Bullwinkle as a franchise. If it is considered as a franchise with over $300 million gross, should it be added to the Franchise list on this page? It would appear to be somewhere near the bottom, but would out gross Rugrats at $299,590,872 Telewski (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

the Rocky and Bullwinkle show Franchies Box office performance

 * Interesting. Unfortunately, Only the "Peabody and Sherman" movie was fully animated.  "Rocky and Bullwinkle" was live action and animation (BTW, 2000 for a release date, not 1946)  leading to the earlier question should these types of movies be considered animation (I think they should).  I don't recall if "Dudley Do-Right" or "Boris and Natasha" included animation.  Comment?  But clearly, they are a franchise.  Not significant enough to compete on the Highest Grossing Films page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films) but maybe here depending on consensus Telewski (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

live action and animation
Do you think live action and animation should be on this page?


 * Having given this question some thought since the Spunge Bob posting, I'm now seriously leaning towards no. Technically, would "Avatar" be considered live action-animation?  What about "Star Wars: Episode I" (think Jar Jar Binks) and other films with CGI characters? When would CGI characters and effects in a live action film qualify as animation (it becoming common place)?  If a film is/was based on a previously animated feature/characters (ie. Rocky & Bullwinkle, Roger Rabbit, Garfield, Casper, Steward Little, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Sponge Bob, Paddington) then in a way they could be considered, in part, animation. However, a separate page for this genre of movie hybrid would be a potential solution if there was interest. Telewski (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

new page
So like a new page I.e  highest grossing live action and animation films  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this might be the best solution to deal with this genre and settle the debate. Give credit and recognize these movies (keep animation fans happy), but not confuse them with 100% animation. Franchises could include "Ninja Turtles", and "Alvan and the Chipmunks" movies. To be included the characters which are animated/CGI must have been derived from a previous illustrated work, ie. comics, cartoons, illustrated children's books, or graphic novels. 100% live action films based on graphic novels/cartoons like the Batman, Superman, and Marvel universe franchises would not be included. This would also eliminate two of the Rocky and Bullwinkle franchise films. It might not be possible or practical to create a "High-grossing films by year of release" section as there are on this page and the Highest Grossing Films page as these movies are relatively rare and when released, likely the only one for that year, skipping years in between. Telewski (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

how long
How long will it take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't know, I've not put one of these pages together. There is already a good start at (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Films_with_live_action_and_animation). I'd be willing to pitch in and work with someone. Telewski (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

ask
I have ask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#help To see if anyone wants to help out

Dinosaur
Should Dinosaur be on this page?

As it is a live-action/computer-animated film.

If we do remover it form this page.

Hotel Transylvania will be in the Highest-grossing animated films.

Chicken Little will be in the Highest-grossing computer-animated films.

And Chicken Run will be the top grossing animated film of 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is still a animated film, the backgrounds were filmed on real life locations, but the dinosaurs characters are animated, it's not like Who Framed Roger Rabbit where only the main character and a few minor are animated and the rest is live-action. Plus, there are many sources that consider Dinosaur a animated film. DCF94 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oscar & BAFTA rules

 * You really should use objective criteria. In theory, an animated film should be eligible to be entered for the Best animated feature Oscar, which is defined at http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf (rule 7): An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of more than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time. BAFTA also have a similar definition at http://static.bafta.org/files/rule-book-bafta-film-awards-1314-1634.pdf (A-17): A film will be classed as an animated feature film if it is primarily animated throughout the majority of the length of the film and has a significant number of animated major characters. Under this criteria I believe Dinosaur would qualify as would Who Framed Roger Rabbit (where animation appears in virtually every scene). Betty Logan (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't biased or anything, I said that many sources (I should've specified which sourced, I see that now) considered Dinosaur a animated film, and I wasn't gonna re-open the Who Framed Roger Rabbit discussion that already had been talked about on this talk page, so I just compared my point to that film. DCF94 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My point wasn't directed at you personally, it was a general observation. This page ideally needs a sourced objective criteria defining animated films, and if you had one then such discussions as this would not be necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

highest grossing live action - animated films mock up list
Here is a mock up list of the top 50 can u please check and expand


 * {{legend|#b6fcb6|size=50%| Background shading indicates films playing in the week commencing in theaters around the world.}}

Good start! But I still am concerned with the dividing line for differentiating between live action and live action + animation. Jurassic Park and Life of Pi use computer gen animation to create a live action version of a character, but if we consider this, then Godzilla and King Kong should also qualify. The most recent King Kong release, for example, earned $528,676,069 http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=godzilla2012.htm and would be in 5th place on your chart. Star Wars Episode I earned $1,027,044,677 and would be in second place. I think a solid definition would be helpful, maybe something like the one listed above for Oscar and BAFTA? Would Life of Pi and Jurassic meet their criteria for animation/live action? Telewski (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is a distinction between a CGI "character" and a CGI "prop", but where to draw that line is the problem. You could just make this very simple for yourselves and limit the chart to films that mix live action and animated characters (excluding motion capture) that are credited with a voiceover actor. If an animated character has a voiceover actor it is indisputably "characterized". You could set the scope of the chart explicitly by calling it something like "List of films with live-action and animated characters", or something to that effect, and provide clear criteria for an animated character. Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I like what I see with the revisions above. Betty's suggestion also makes some sense and could simply things.  However, not being a film 'expert', would Yoda (first appeared as a puppet, in later sequels, as CGI) and Jar Jar Binks then qualify, since they are CGI "characters" with a voiceover actor.  Would the character Gollum in Lord of the Rings qualify LOTR as Live action/animation?  On IMDb, the Gollum character is listed as " Andy Serkis Gollum / Witch-King (voice)" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm  For SW, "Jar Jar Binks Ahmed Best (voice) and "Yoda Frank Oz (Voice)" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm.  It appears IMDb lists these as voiceover actors?  Would that be a correct assumption?  Telewski (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They would qualify if they were full CGI (an animation process) and not motion capture (principally a filming process). Wasn't Gollum mostly motion capture? Don't know about Yoda; obviously the puppet version isn't animated, but if Yoda is full CGI I can't say I really see a difference between the Star Wars prequels and Scooby Doo. Either way, I think if you create this chart you need a very clear and explicit criteria or you will end up with a constant edit war on your hands as editors attempt to add pretty much everything with CGI in it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This sounded a lot easier at the start. I've added movies to the list above, but it becomes frustrating trying to find totals for some of the movies (I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know already).  BOM sometimes only lists domestic grosses, not international, for all movies.  And some classic movies, like Disney's "The Three Caballeros" or "Song of the South" don't even show up on BOM. "Anchors Aweigh" from 1944 shows up in BOM, but no earnings. Comments welcome.


 * OK, now we're cooking. Good edits, additions, and earnings finds. "Holy Grail" can be updated after summing up re-release figures posted on IMDb.  I'll work on that. Glad you caught Paddington!  One question, do we want to count direct-to-video releases in the list (Casper Meets Wendy)? I haven't seen them on the other lists, but then their earnings usually don't compete with box office sales on highest grossing pages.  Also, I'm confused with "Paul".  Was the character Paul animated or motion capture?
 * Next step? Telewski (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Annie Award for Outstanding Achievement, Character Animation in a Live Action Productionr

 * On another thought, would the Annie Award category; "Outstanding Achievement, Character Animation in a Live Action Production" http://annieawards.org/nominees/#14 be a good criteria for this list? Telewski (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Stuart Little
The Stuart Little film series, perhaps?--Coin945 (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

good catch

Added Stuart Little to the franchise list below as well. I removed Paul and Casper Meets Wendy from the top 50 list. Paul appears to be motion capture. Casper Meets Wendy is a direct to video release. If we start counting direct to video releases, this could get messy. There are other direct to video releases associated with some of these movies which if counted would also have to be counted in the franchise list. I don't believe the other two lists do this. Telewski (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

hop
Good catch on Hop! Keep 'em coming Telewski (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Cats and Dogs
What about Cats and Dogs ?--Coin945 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting questions. According to the DVD bonus feature, the first Cats and Dogs was a combination of puppetry and CGI.  The same appears to be true for The Revenge of Kitty Galore . My question would be if the CGI was used to just polish the puppet expressions or were characters actually CGI?  Does anyone here know for certain?  If characters were generated exclusively using CGI in either or both, then I would agree they should be included here.  If not, than no.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Telewski (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Telewski (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Baby Genius
What about Baby Genius
 * Apparently, the only animation used in Baby Genius was its use to create the lip motions (mouth viseme shapes)on live action babies, so I wouldn't qualify this as animated characters for this listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telewski (talk • contribs) 03:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)  Telewski (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

underdog
How about Underdog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.222.240 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I dug around on the internet, Wikipedia, Disney wiki, Fandango, IMDb, Box Office Mojo, trying to find an answer.  There was some animation according to the Disney wiki http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Underdog which was copied verbatim onto the Underdog Wikipedia page.  The animation supervisor was Alexander Williams. But I don't think the dogs were completely animated characters.  Likely their features were animated to present the appearance of talking and emotions (flying effects?).  Live animals (dogs) were used in the film. Fandango http://www.fandango.com/underdog_98267/castandcrew reports Boone Narr was the Animal Trainer/Wrangler on Underdog. I couldn't find any information about puppets being used in Underdog like they were in Cats & Dogs.  So, based on the fact live animals were used, I would vote no for inclusion at this time until additional clarification can be presented.  Thanks!  Telewski (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

highest grossing live action - animated film series & franchises films
The next step is a highest grossing live action - animated film series & franchises films  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Giving this subject some additional thought and going back to the original question regarding identifying which films qualify for this category, I came up with the following dichotomy;  Why is animation used in a live action film?
 * 1. Animation is required to bring a character or prop 'to life' in a 'real life' scenario. Examples- "Transformers" franchise, "Star Wars" franchise (mostly after the first 3, but then in the re-releases), "Lord of the Rings" franchise, "Marvel Universe" franchise (think Rocket and Groot in GOTG). The new "Planet of the Apes" franchise uses motion capture, and if we decided not to include motion capture, then it would not qualify for this category.
 * 2. Animation is used to bring the live action world into contact with the animated/comic world or animating inanimate objects (think 'Ted'). Examples- 'Pink Panther' franchise,  "Alvin" franchise, 'Monty Python' franchise, 'Garfield' franchise, 'Spongebob Squarepants' soon to be franchise.
 * The list we generated above fits well the second category of live action-animated films. "Paul" would need to be moved to the first or dropped all together if it is motion capture. For a Wiki page, we should probably also generate a second list of highest grossing films that fits the first category. I think this might be the best way to address this variable subject. Telewski (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

highest grossing live action - animated film series & franchises films mock up list
Monty Python's Meaning of Life had an animated sequence with a leaf dying.

intros
Added intros

main intro
following is a non-definitive list of the all-time "highest grossing live action - animated films '''. live action and animations generate income from several revenue streams including theatrical exhibition, home video, television broadcast rights and merchandising. However, theatrical box office earnings are the primary metric for trade publications (such as Box Office Mojo and Variety) in assessing the success of a film, mostly due to the availability of the data compared to sales figures for home video and broadcast rights, and also due to historical practice. Included on the list are charts of the top box-office earners live action - animated films and a chart of the highest-grossing live action - animated films film franchises and series. All charts are ranked by international theatrical box office performance where possible, excluding income derived from home video, broadcasting rights and merchandise.

highest grossing live action - animated films intro
The chart below lists the highest grossing live action - animated films. Figures are given in United States dollars (USD). Many films that were released during the 20th century do not appear on this list as figures have not been adjusted for inflation. For example, if figures were adjusted for inflation, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs would appear at the top of the chart with an adjusted gross of $1,746,100,000.

70% of the films in the top 50 were released after 2000. 2003, 2004, and 2011 are the most represented years on the list, with four films each. All films in the alvin & the chipmucks, the smurfs, happy feet, Stuart Little, Scooby-Doo, Garfield, Looney Tunes, Fantasia, franchises are in the top 50 highest-grossing live action - animated films. The pink panther is the most represented franchise with 5 films.

Three of the movies on this list also appear on the worldwide highest-grossing animated films of all time.

The films on this list have all had a theatrical run (including re-releases) since 1973. Films that have not played since then do not appear on the chart due to ticket-price inflation, population size and ticket purchasing trends not being considered.


 * Was Mary Poppins re-released after 1964? It is amazing that it holds up at #30 on our list!  Same is true for Fantasia (1941) and Song of the South (1946). These are all pre-1973.  Wonder what they would be if adjusted for inflation! Telewski (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

highest grossing live action - animated franchises films intro
The following chart is a list of the highest-grossing animated film franchises. Only happy feet is  among the highest grossing animated film franchises of all-time. The alvin & the chipmucks franchise is the most successful, with worldwide box office totals of over $1.1 billion. A given franchise needs to have at least 2 theatrically released films to be on this list. The smurfs franchise has the highest per-film average, with nearly $456 million per film.

submit
do you think you can submit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Telewski/sandbox#Highest-grossing_films_which_combine_Live_Action_with_Animation soon


 * Wow, OK, so good to know my sandbox page can be accessed. Good additions, but they will require some editing before I can submit to Wiki.  I will get to these soon, but I have a book chapter due to my editor by the end of the week!  Got to keep the day job.


 * We should probably also generate that second list as proposed at the end of the page. I'll work on putting some films on the list.  Obviously, Transformers, Lord of the Rings, my fav Guardians of the Galaxy- love Rocket, some of the Star Wars franchise, maybe Planet of the Apes, maybe the Hell Boy franchise film (need to check if they were animated characters).  I think stop motion animation would qualify. Other films?  Telewski (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Live Action combine with Animation film series and Franchise List:
Submitted for your approval: Telewski (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * {{legend|#b6fcb6|indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing .|text=}}

what else do we need — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would think some intro text to lead into and explain the catagory, based on our earlier discussions. I put something together in my sandbox here on Wiki. Is there a multi-user sandbox where page mockups can be posted and reviewed by the group here? If not, I can just post it here. Telewski (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Live Action-Animation films adjusted for inflation
As a follow-up to the above discussion regarding including films (or not) released prior to 1970, there are three films on the list which were:

Mary Poppins     1964  #30 Song of the South 1945 #34 Fantasia         1941  #36

BOM provides an adjustment page http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm in which:

Mary Poppins adjusted for inflation is $648,909,100 vs.$102,272,727 Fantasia 	                      $689,260,900 vs.	$76,408,097

This clearly thrusts both of these two films to the top of the list. Sadly, Song of the South adjusted data is not presented.

Do we keep these three films in the list where they are? Do we adjust the top two to reflect inflation? Do we remove the three movies to be consistent with the post 1970s inflation statement and just make a note on the page regarding Mary Poppins, Fantasia, Song of the South? Or, we could create an adjusted table for the top ten films in this category, if data is available for the rest of the list...  The Smurfs film doesn't show up on BOM's list. Telewski (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

this is domestic only.


 * Yes, I noticed that, but so are the totals we presented in the table above for these films. International totals aren't available that far back I guess.  So frustrating.Telewski (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to talk about inflation on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.214.244 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the high performance of Poppins, Fantasia and Song, compared to other more current films, and that the high figures only represent domestic numbers, I would say a nod to these movies and inflation is warranted. We should remove them from the top 50 list because of 1. only being domestic figures and 2. they are pre-1970. Telewski (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have ask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#AFI to see if they know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we keep them were they are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm all for keeping them on the list. But if we do, there definitely needs to be some footnotes and recognition regarding the disparity due to inflation.  Unless we did use the adjusted figures, and once again, the figures are only domestic grosses unless we get a response to the post on the other Wiki page.  I'll have some time to edit the page draft in my sandbox over the weekend and after that look for comments. Telewski (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

the Sorcerer's Apprentice
I've added the The_Sorcerer's_Apprentice_(2010_film) to the top 50. With the animated Mickey's hat and the brooms right out of Fantasia, plus the animated bull on Wall Street, I figure it belongs on the list. Thoughts? Telewski (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

who ya gonna call
Did the Ghostbusters films use animation?


 * Stop motion animation according to the web http://www.shemoviegeek.com/2012/03/randy-cook-ghostbusters-and-his-work-on-stop-motionpractical-effects-before-winning-the-oscar-for-lord-of-the-rings/


 * Just like King Kong. So, do we count it in this list or the second list?  I've vote this list.  Earned $295,212,467 	 It also appears that the the Statue of Liberty was stop motion animated in Ghostbusters 2, but I can't find a written confirmation to source.  If this is true, then Ghostbusters should be included in the franchise list.  Will be interesting to see if Ghostbusters 3 will have animation.  Can't imagine it won't. Telewski (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Help, How to insert a section
Been working on the page in the sandbox and can't seem to insert a section below the franchise table. Any one know what I'm doing incorrectly? I want to start a second table for live action and animation for films that use animation to create characters or props that are indistinguishable from live action such as Transformers and Jurassic Park. Telewski (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for inserting the table in the sandbox, but it still appears before the franchise table. I was hoping to place it after the franchise table. Telewski (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave it a try but can not do it dose it have to go under the franchise table  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ,
 * Thanks for trying. This is weird, I'm missing something in the code.  It would be better to have it in sequence after the Inflation section and then move on to the second list of 50.  Telewski (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * GOT IT!!! Woo Hoo! It was in the code, one line |- at the end needed to be deleted!Telewski (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

harry potter
how about the Harry Potter films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Harry Potter franchise does use CGI animation as does the Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, Iron Man/Avengers, Star Wars, and Transformers franchises. Titanic and Avatar also use animation.  We've decided to separate the use of animation into two categories.  When CGI animation is used to create characters, props, or scenes which are specifically designed to look like the live-action world in which they appear, we will place them in the second category list.  Currently 32 of the top grossing 50 films use CGI or other animation techniques.  Add the 8 animated films on that list, and only 9 films in the top 50 don't use some form of animation.  Telewski (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Submitting Live-Action/Animation page
OK, I believe we have a solid draft of this page and will submit it today for review to Wikipedia. If there are any edits, additions or suggestions, we can then continue on the Talk page for the new page once it is posted. Telewski (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Update from Wikipedia regarding submission: "Review waiting. This may take more than 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1,582 submissions waiting for review."  Telewski (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to put it in the see also or somewhere else when it upolded

Or tell us it has been decline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.225.233 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll let the group know the fate of the page (decline or accept). I don't know what the "see also" is.  Please define or clarify. I think you can see the page as is in my sandbox.  Thanks.  Telewski (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of new page...
Well, the new page on live action and animation I put together with all your help was rejected. See the comment below from the wiki editor:

"While I can appreciate the effort that has gone into this draft, it is meeting #6 in the WP:NOTDIR category of "What Wikipedia is not." One could create any number of "films that combine X with Y" and have a dozen similar articles, but what would be the point? We have lists of the largest grossing films and the best animated films, and as you've demonstrated in the CGI section, the vast majority of films have some animation in them these days. Unless a compelling reason exists for this specific combination of film categories, I do not think it has a place on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

The other statement I receive: "You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. If you require extra help, please ask a question on the Articles for creation help desk, ask the reviewer that declined your submission, or get help at our live help chat from experienced editors. Find sources: "Highest-grossing films which combine Live Action with Animation" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Declined by Primefac 4 hours ago. Last edited by Primefac 4 hours."

Which I think is boiler plate.

Any suggestions on where to go from here? What is our compelling reason for this page?

ThanksTelewski (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I can't think of a compelling reason, but I can suggest, till we can find one, to start editing the page, make it look more presentable. You can start with the titles, you should make them shorter and explain in details in the text under. Other think would be the references, take an example from this page on how to edit a proper ref. I will try to help you when I have time, only if you want of course, and I will try to do some research to bring a 'compelling reason' to get the page accepted. DCF94 (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate the help and suggestions. Although I've published many papers and book chapters (but not about movies), this is my first crack at a Wiki page. I'll look over the references.  I thought I was essentially following what was done on both of the highest grossing film pages. Do you think Wiki may be looking for references beyond other Wiki pages? I can work on the section titles. Telewski (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ask away
I ask http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Primefac#Draft_decline_question to see what needs to be done  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Future of Live-Action-Animation page
For those editors on this page who shared interest in and participated in the development of a List of highest-grossing live action combined with animation page, please continue by visiting the talk page for that draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Highest-grossing_films_which_combine_Live_Action_with_Animation

The latest comment from Primefac does not look promising. I posted it there. I gave it my best shot, thanks Telewski (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)