Talk:Walt Disney Animation Studios/Archive 1

Disney Pixar merger
The deal has been agreed and announced, but it hasn't closed (which might take several months). Until then, Pixar will continue to be a separate company, and the corresponding wikipedia disney-pixar article merger should be held off. Bwithh 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And even when it goes through I don't think it should be merged here as Disney-Pixar Animation Studios will still be a nominially seperate entity under the current Pixar managment.Gateman1997 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think Pixar should be merged. The merger does not change the fact that Pixar did exist and was a groundbreaking company in it's own right with work products labelled solely with that name.  The existing Pixar article should remain as documentation of what Pixar (RIP) did while it was independent, and the post-merger accomplishments of the new entity should remain separate.   RandallJones 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There should be no merging of Wikipedia articles period. A seperate article on WDFA to cover historical content, a seperate one on Pixar to cover historical content, and a new one on Disney-Pixar Studios will keep each article within a readable scope. --FuriousFreddy 02:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with FuriousFreddy. --Renesis13 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with FuriousFreddy. --Padrhig 25 January 2006
 * Agree with FuriousFreddy. LordBleen 04:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags. There is currently a merge-triangle between three articles (Pixar, Disney-Pixar Studios and Walt Disney Feature Animation) all wanting to merge into each other. Not only does this not make sense (they can't all merge into each other unless all three become one article) but there does not seem to be any support for merging. It appears as if though this was added with malicious or vandalistic intent. If anyone still feels like the merge tags are warranted, please add merge tags at more specific locations (let us know which sections should be merged and to/from where). Zukeeper 09:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it has been stated that WDFA and Pixar will not be merged, but will remain seperate entities under a feature animation umbrella . Therefore, there should be no "Disney-Pixar Studios" article period. --FuriousFreddy 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Katzenberg?
How could an article on Feature Animation not contain ANY mention of Jeffery Katzenberg and his unbelievable run in the 1990's? The closest parallel is the mention of Larson bringing new blood to the studio with new hires and a string of hits starting with the Little Mermaid. Katzenberg was the head of the Studios while that was going on and had almost complete control over the productions, etc. His infamous 5AM staff meetings, unsatiable thirst for Diet Coke, and non stop criticism of the Studio staff is legendary. --Buggsbuny 16:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section Removed
I removed the Criticism section from the article because the criticism about direct-to-video sequels doesn't reflect what WDFA does. Disney direct-to-video sequels are not made by WDFA; they are made by Walt Disney Television Animation and DisneyToon Studios. This criticism only belongs in The Walt Disney Company article or the DisneyToon Studios article. This in no way belongs in the WDFA article because WDFA only made two theatrical released sequels, The Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia 2000. Jonyyeh 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

DisneyToon studios is now part of the new Disney Animation Studios, although it is still incorrect to include criticism of the DTS projects prior to this merger in this article. 204.128.192.3 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on moving the article?
<According to Variety, Walt Disney Feature Animation has changed its name to Walt Disney Animation Studios and is putting out one pic every 18 months.   So, should this article be moved to Walt Disney Animation Studios? SpikeJones 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like the article has been moved.  There you go. SpikeJones 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

CGI
The Black Cauldron was not the first animated feature to use computer-generated imagery. See Lensman: Secret of the Lens. Alone Coder (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The short subject department
The articles says that Disney shut down the shorts unit in 1962, but in the article about Walt Disney, it is claimed this happened in 1956. Which is correct? 80.202.40.85 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

subsidiary or division?
Some wikipedia pages say Walt Disney Animation Studios is a divison of the Walt Disney Company while others (including this one) say it's a subsidiary. So which is it? Web wonder (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal & Article Rewrite
Disney Renaissance is completely redundant with the scope of the history of Walt Disney Animation Studios. I briefly considered taking its content, summarizing it, and adding the summary here, but after I started trying to edit that article, I realized that once I was done, the scope of the text would be exactly the same as whatever would be included in the 1979-1999 history of this studio. While there's nothing wrong with expanding the history section here (and taking some of the animation content load off of The Walt Disney Company) and adding a "Disney Renaissance" section here with redirect, I really don't see any scholarly point in retaining this as a separate article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse merge. I just did a quick Google search and found over 250,000 hits on "Disney renaissance". Skimming the first 30 or so hits, most are fan sites, blogs, Wikipedia mirrors, or only mention the term in passing. The term is definitely in the vernacular of the film/animation industry, but I have a hard time seeing how it meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article. I think the "History" section of this article should be divided into subsections with one devoted to the "Disney Renaissance". &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, at first blush, it appears that the inclusion and/or exclusion of films that make up the Disney Renaissance constitutes OR. The source given to back the claim that the Renaissance ended in 1999 appears to be an opinion piece, and most of the sources given in the rest of the article only establish the films' box office revenue, not that these films constituted the Disney Renaissance. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse merge, I think that, without reliable secondary sources, this is pretty much OR. If it is based on box office, then why Atlantis or Lilo & Stitch not included? Also, Lilo & Stitch and Brother Bear received positive critics, so this proves that the inclusion criteria is ambiguous and the topic must be merged. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the term "Disney Renaissance" is, to my understanding, used in the context of the history of western animation, not in the history of Disney, and has more to do with the renaissance's overall effects on the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.145.202 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

'''An in-progress version of the revised page/merge has been provided at /rewrite. Please help improve, complete, and format this page.''' --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a few edits to the page (added years etc.). I have also added the importance of Tangled into the History section on the current page, seeing as it is the studios 50th film. Effluvium (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article appears to have a lot of vandalism but is not a high quality article on Wikipedia. Thoughts on some protection level for the article? --ben_b (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This talk page needs a new banner
This talk page needs a banner on top saying that this is for improving the article and not for promoting your wishes about upcoming movies. Georgia guy (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The current banner indicates that the page is solely for discussion on improving the article, and should be sufficient. Any such wishlist discussions can be removed at will, if needed, although I would advise that the editor making the statement should be notified (although not necessarily warned, especially if a newcomer) of why it was removed. -- McDoob  AU  93  15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I added the banner briefly after I posted this section. Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well handled, of course ... this should be marked as Resolved, I'd say. :) -- McDoob  AU  93  17:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of talk page spam, can we start making a list of discussions that are not relevant and begin to delete them? LeciaMan (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Divisions Section
In the info box for Walt Disney Animation Studios, there appears to be divisions of Walt Disney Animation that were closed down in the mid 2000's (Orlando, Paris, and Tokyo), the late 80's (London), and that are part of another division of the Walt Disney Company (Disney Television Animation). The only division that is a presently part of WDAS is DisneyToon Studios. Having said that, can we agree that the former and non-affiliated divisions should be deleted from the info box? LeciaMan (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, they should be listed for historical purposes with the dates they were divisions similar to have the DTA page lists them. --ben_b (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just meant removing them from the info box, not from the article. I agree they should be in the article for historical purposes, but not in the info box. LeicaMan 14:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeciaMan (talk • contribs)
 * Not sure I agree that they should not be in the infobox. See the DTA articles infobox. --ben_b (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the DTA infobox, I understand where you're coming from but I'm concerned that having those former divisions in the infobox is weighing it down. The purpose of the info box is to give a quick snapshot of the most important and informative facts about the subject of the article. LeicaMan (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Any more Traditionally Animatied features from Disney?
Is there any more traditional animated features from Disney to come? I hope these upcoming 2D animated features could be very successful like The Lion King and Tarzan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.178.57 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Contrary to extrapolation, Frozen will be computer-animated. We'll have to wait until Disney's 54th Classic is revealed until we can answer this question. Georgia guy (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened to traditional animation at Disney Feature Animation, now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.204.73 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Circle 7 / DisneyToon Studios

 * Regarding Circle 7, your reference says "Disney animation chief David Stainton, to whom the sequels unit reports". It does not mention Walt Disney Feature Animation.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also dubious as to whether DisneyToon Studios is a subdivision of WDAS. But if we split, we can explore each entity in its own right without getting all jumbled up...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating really. It seems all the Disney articles are a mess, with misinformation, duplication, omission, and contradiction...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * email that Walt Disney Feature Animation President David Stainton: "we have rebuilt animation at this company, landed a hit our first time at bat in CG, built amazing teams at circle 7 and dts,.." And dts refers to most likely DisneyToon Studios. Spshu (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because the head of DTS reports to the president of WDFA, does not necessarily follow that DTS is a subsidiary of WDFA. And Stainton referencing Circle 7 in his outgoing email (reliable source?) doesn't necessarily mean that Circle 7 was part of WDFA either - when he says "we", he could be speaking about the whole Disney organisation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "DisneyToon Studios (DTS) is being restructured and will now operate as a separate unit under the supervision of Walt Disney Animation Studios". I'm not sure how we should deal with this really.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

←We may never know which company is truely a subsidiary (or division) of which company in a large congomerate like Walt Disney Company. But it makes them effectively a unit of another unit as the head of one unit is subordinate to the head of another thus under the control of that unit making it a defacto or dejure sub-unit. Further down in the PR: "With DisneyToon Studios now part of Walt Disney Animation Studios, we hope to explore a wide variety of fun and original story ideas and projects." Seems to supports my position that "reporting to" creates a defacto if not dejure sub-unit. Hmmm, DisneyToon Studios must of been removed at some point (2004? - given she was president of DTS in 2004) from WDFA then returned in 2007.Spshu (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Walt Disney Animation Studios: "Properties: Walt Disney Animation Studios, DisneyToon Studios"
 * [ttp://www.waltdisneystudios.com/corp/unit/76 DisneyToon Studios is listed under a heading of Walt Disney Animation Studios] Spshu (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spshu's stance on Circle 7 and DisneyToon Studios being subdivisions (or were once, in the case of Circle 7). I think the most prudent matter right now is re-hauling the whole page, addressing the problems Rob Sinden pointed out to, that continue to plague the Disney articles. ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 19:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If DTS or C7A are WDAS subdivisions or not, the important thing is that we don't need to know the whole story of each of these studios here. That's what they have their own articles. A mention of his foundation and when they were finished (in the case of C7A) is enough. Tim Week (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

Split?
There seems to be a somewhat lack of focus for this page. A lot of it is a content fork from The Walt Disney Company, and the splitting, re-integrating and re-branding of the company's component parts leaves this page somewhat confused. As Walt Disney Animation Studios has only existed as an entity since 2006, would there be any merit in splitting the article, so that this page is only concerned with the company's activities since 2006, and splitting down the history and content to a separate article for Walt Disney Feature Animation for activities between 1988-2006, etc, etc? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with this article is that it mixes completely different things as if they had some kind of connection. I've noticed that most of the contributors to this article sees Walt Disney Animation Studios as an entity that controls various animation studios within The Walt Disney Company, which is completely wrong. WDAS is a standalone studio within the company, as well as Pixar. On the fact of splitting the article, I agree in part. I think it is vitally important that the article be rewritten, removing things without connection with the history of WDAS, as the restructuring of Disney Television Animation or Circle 7 Animation story. I wonder who put this here, since they are two separate studios and that has nothing to do with the WDAS history. But again, it's like I said before, all this confusion is caused by people who think in WDAS as an entity that controls various animation studios in the The Walt Disney Company, rather than seeing it as it is, only a single studio. But just talking about the article focused with the studio activities since 2006, I disagree. Although the studio has just received its current name in 2006, it has existed for decades in its current form, the only thing that has changed is their nomenclature. What is needed is to know how to differentiate and separate what is the history of Walt Disney Animation Studios and what is the history of The Walt Disney Company and their others animation studios. WDAS is not a company, or control other animation studios (who does this is The Walt Disney Company): it's just an animation studio located in Burbank, nothing more. Tim Week (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Tim Week
 * I think we're coming from roughly the same position as regards to what is wrong with the page. My thoughts behind a split were to separate the history into individual articles for each entity (one article for WDAS, one for WDFA, etc), thus avoiding the confusion of mixing everything together.  I notice someone had a go at a rewrite here which seems to be an improvement over what we have.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tim Week: "I've noticed that most of the contributors to this article sees Walt Disney Animation Studios as an entity that controls various animation studios within The Walt Disney Company, which is completely wrong."  Only if you ignore the sources.  It has been pointed out to you that Circle 7 Animation was a unit of Feature Animation on [my talk page via a quote that indicates that the Circle 7 reports to the WDFA head and you still choose to ignore it.  Now, you are claim that other units, like DisneyToon Studios, don't have anything to do with WDFA/WDAS when there is a direct source indicating that it was transfer into WDFA.  You have no business edit this out or claiming this is wrong.  Do not force your opinion above that of the sources in this regard.  An animation studio is a company as this is a business entity.
 * Back to the issue of spliting. Heck, I could not even get a split on DreamWorks when there are two actual seperate legal entities (three if you count DreamWorks Animation) involved.  Although, Viacom got the split.  Go figure.  This article is about the Disney features animation department that was renamed twice to WDFA then in 2006 to WDAS. That is all. Spshu (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Pixar President Ed Catmull will serve as president of the combined Pixar and Disney animation studios, reporting to Iger and Dick Cook, chairman of The Walt Disney Studios."
 * "The two companies will remain separate, with Pixar keeping its brand name and headquarters in Emeryville, near San Francisco. Maintaining Pixar’s unique creative character was a priority in the talks, executives said."
 * Disney Feature Animation ("Disney animation studios") is ID as a company in the above, Tim Week. Spshu (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my suggestion to split. I think the way we're going with the article is the right way.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"Walt Disney Animated Classics"
Here on Wikipedia, all WDAS films articles says: "It is the X animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series". I believe the use of this term is definitely wrong, for a number of reasons. Here are some of them:

1. It is a commercial (and outdated) term: "Walt Disney Animated Classics" is a term created solely for commercial purposes. WDAS never used the term to refer to their productions ("This is our 50th animated feature", not "This is the 50th animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series"). To make matters worse, Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment no longer use the term, so what is he doing in the Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph or Big Hero 6 articles, for example?

2. Isn't uniform: Depending of the country, "Walt Disney Animated Classics" includes not only the WDAS films. In UK, Dinosaur is not considered a "Walt Disney Classic", but C.O.R.E.'s The Wild yes. In Brazil, all Pixar films are counted as "Walt Disney Classics". Thus, the term serves only to create confusion and trouble.

I suggest that an update in all WDAS films articles, replacing "It is the X animated feature in the Walt Disney Animated Classics series" for "is the X animated feature produced by the studio", or something. And also change the redirection for List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films, not List of Disney theatrical animated features ("List of WDAS films" is much more detailed, cohesive and informative, in addition to being directly connected to WDAS productions).

So, what are your thoughts? Tim Week (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Tim Week

How about the term internally used at Disney; Walt Disney Animation Cannon? LeicaMan (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Further Reading Suggestions
Post suggestions for a Further Reading section here. LeicaMan (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

1977 top grossing films?
The article says this" "The Rescuers...ended up being the third highest grossing film in 1977 behind Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." Yet the Wiki page for 1977 in film has it 6th: 1.	Star Wars	$460,998,007 2.	Close Encounters of the Third Kind	$166,000,000 3.	Saturday Night Fever	$139,486,124 4.	Smokey and the Bandit	$126,737,428 5.	The Goodbye Girl	$83,700,000 6.	The Rescuers	$71,215,869 So...which is it? 70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)TF


 * Whatever source used for the first mention is probably including the 1983 reissue of The Rescuers in its total, which it should not be doing. Will correct. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)