Film: American

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Animation: American / Pixar High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Pixar work group (assessed as Top-importance).

Lists List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article cited says nothing about this, and the linked article has nothing to do with pixar; it's a tv show from the 80's. I'm deleting the line from the table. 66.44.153.61 (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very well read on the different Academy Awards to the different Pixar films but I am pretty certain that Up didn't win "Best Picture." However due to my lack of knowledge I didn't change it. I thought I'd let someone a little bit more than me. 174.59.60.197 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is fine. You're misinterpreting what the table data is displaying. SpikeJones (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but please do not mix-n-match timelines of theatrical feature releases with theatrical shorts with DVD-only productions as we do not necessarily know that (a) followed (b) followed (c) in the production process. If you feel the need to recreate those edits, try to keep them in the same family (DVD-only vs Feature vs Shorts). Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the worldwide gross for WALL-E obtained from? It's not from boxofficemojo as that's well out of date with the international totals and this total differs considerably.--Gaunt (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the first of the Pixar created shorts for Disney Channel has recently aired. Now I've not seen them since i'm in the UK and I don't think there is a air date over here, therefore can't add much detail other than info from the reports. Just wondering how we should add these - usually everyone is so fast at updating the Pixar pages! Should the new "Cars Toons" series starring Mater be added to the short films list, or shall we start another table for the television shorts since there is no 'theatrical' or 'home release' premieres? A page does exist for the series ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cars_Toons ), so there is somewhere to link the new entries to until they have their own entries. SWatsi (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page is for films, not TV productions. For example, the Buzz Lightyear TV series is not included on this page. SpikeJones (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. I understand that, and it's a good reason. Are you suggesting a seperate page for tv projects? I think it needs to be discussed where all productions belong in the larger scheme of things - here might be as good a place as any for the time being. Do all of the 'short films' on this page at present qualify as a film? What is the difference of three minutes of original animation that debuts on a DVD (such as Jack-Jack Attack) and three minutes of original animation that debuts on the television? Also if these three shorts were to be released theatrically or on a DVD at some point (as I have seen suggested in interviews), would they then qualify for this list?

Also even if TV was included I don't think the Buzz Lightyear tv series counts, as animation wasn't done by them - correct?

BTW. I'm just speculating here! Its good to be informed! SWatsi (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the DVD-specific shorts should be pulled from this listing, but that is not a battle I will take on. Take a look at whether the various Disney animation-related articles dealt with this issue already (or looney tunes, or any other film AND TV production house, did). If you can find an existing standard that other areas are already using, then that would be a good place to start. How is it represented in the main Pixar article? Where are other Pixar-created TV productions (listerine, opening credits for some TV show whose name I've forgotten, life savers, etc) listed? What would be ramifications of including/not including TV work on *this* page down the road if the product turns into a series or if there is a "Sulley's Silly Tales" set of TV shorts? Look at the big picture, then come back with your thoughts. SpikeJones (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why Leftorium made [this edit] to the page, duplicating content from Pixar to here. As this is a "list of Pixar films" rather than an explanation of Pixar film-creation/history, it seems out of place here. When I go to a "list" page, I expect a list of some sort, not paragraphs of reading material. I had reverted this edit once, but Leftorium put it back - so instead of continuing to revert, thought I'd bring the discussion here first. Comments/thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on getting this article to Featured list status. Read this for more information. —TheLeftorium 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I will update the page to have an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list, similar to the Featured List used as an example on the page you pointed to. SpikeJones (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Theleftorium: Please explain how your copying of info from the Pixar page addresses the guidelines on WP:List#Lead sections in stand-alone lists and WP:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an "engaging lead section that introduces the subject". Anyway, forget what I said about bringing this to FL status, because I wont be making any more edits to the article. —TheLeftorium 15:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that is asked is an explanation to support your edits, of which I don't see any; the link you provided says, in full, "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.". The interpretation is that a list page can't just be a list, but needs to have some explanation of what the list is and what qualifies to be on the list. The page as is currently, does that. Your edit was merely a rehash of Pixar without even stating what the list qualifications were. The example given on this page of List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach is equally brief to the current edit here, without a need to include JSB's bio. The 2nd link that I pointed to states "Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria", of which the current version is. Please explain how your desired edits meet either of these two guidelines for list opening paragraphs? SpikeJones (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the table here, it's too fat. Can we seperate the table somewhat, so one section we have all the films, with directors writers and all that punk. And then a seperate section for box office and other reception stuff?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The excess information was removed by Drunkenpeter99 on 5 Sep 2009, and no longer lists awards, budget, writers, directors, or most ratings. Personally this seems too sparse, now, since there's less info than the In Production section has. The table still needs to find a good balance. Gousha (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard rumors of a future Pixar film called "1904". Does anyone have any more information? 74.33.174.133 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's tentatively called 1906 and is a movie by The Incredibles' Brad Bird about the great San Francisco earthquake. That film, along with Pixar's "John Carter of Mars" trilogy, are supposed to be live-action. I understand 1906 not being listed on this Pixar article if Bird is doing it on his own but from what I have heard, "John Carter of Mars" is supposed to be a Pixar film. It should be listed in upcoming films (tentatively scheduled for 2011). Kwyjibear (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this IMDB page a sequel to Monsters Inc is in production and scheduled for a 2012 release. Does anyone know anything else about this? --98.21.177.45 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no announcement of any kind from Disney or Pete regarding the existence of Monsters 2. That is why there is no inclusion of this information in WP. Only after there is valid, citable evidence, can WP reflect that info. SpikeJones (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's just a rumor. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently IPs have been adding Monsters, Inc. 2 into the list, attaching this source as a reference. On this attempt, someone revised the name of the article to attempt to reference Monsters, Inc. 2 instead of Cars 2. Each time I've reverted it, I've asked people to show me where in this item Monsters, Inc. 2 is even mentioned. To save everyone the time of following the link (which, by the by, is already used as a legitimate source in the article), here is the complete text, cut and paste from the source:

Yesterday when we told you that Cars 2 had been moved forward to the Summer 2011, we forgot to tell you that Pixar’s Newt would be getting the old Cars 2 release date of Summer 2012. It wasn’t made clear why the change was made, but I’m assuming that newt probably required more development time, while all the characters of Cars have already been designed, cutting down the traditional pre-production timeline.

newt marks the directing debut of multiple Academy Award winning sound designer Gary Rydstrom, who made his Pixar debut with the short film Lifted (which premiered in front of Ratatouille). The plot synopsis that was released earlier this years follows: "What happens when the last remaining male and female blue-footed newts on the planet are forced together by science to save the species, and they can’t stand each other? Newt and Brooke embark on a perilous, unpredictable adventure and discover that finding a mate never goes as planned, even when you only have one choice. Love, it turns out, is not a science."

Feel free to highlight, bold or otherwise indicate where in that relatively short section of text Monsters, Inc. 2 is mentioned, much less where a release date is provided. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the fuck are the grosses only domestic. someone needs to change it to worldwide FAST. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is John Carter of mars not in here it is stated as a pixar production with a relase date and confimerd pre-production should it not be up there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.180.6 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sourced information in the film article points to the only Pixar connection to the film being that Andrew Stanton is attached to it as a writer. No Pixar effects, no Pixar branding ... --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP recently added a "Profit" column, whose value was basically obtained from subtracting the film's budget from its total box-office take. It's certainly a good-faith edit, but unfortunately determining a film's profit isn't quite that simple. There are other costs involved that aren't necessarily included in the budget, so a simple subtraction doesn't really get it. Then of course there is "Hollywood math," but that's a whole other issue. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Pixar and I can 100% assure you that Cars 2 is going to be released in June of 2011.

Also, Newt has temporarily been shelved, and is without a doubt not going to be release in 2011.

--24.245.18.91 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC revised its story, stating there was a misunderstanding and that Cars 2 was still scheduled for June 2011. As for Newt, we'd need a verifiable source, preferably outside of Pixar. Unfortunately, we have no proof that you work for Pixar, so it would be difficult to take your word for it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the movie Toy Story 3, two writers are listed namely Michael Arndt and Andrew Stanton. But on the Toy Story 3 article as well as other websites like IMDB it shows only Michael Arndt as the writer. Anyone knows how many and who are they actually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirinsanity (talk • contribs) 08:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Toy Story 1? Its not on the list. Its definitely a Pixar Film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.4.138 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was apparently vandalized by another editor. It's been fixed. Thanks for noticing it! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone heard any news of a Nemo two or of a Nemo 1 1/2 (like what was done on Disney's "The Lion King").—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigne

No. As long as there's no official info on one, we shouldn't talk about it. Georgia guy (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think there should be another row for Academy Awards won by the movies. If anyone else agrees please reply here and I will add it. Nirinsanity 16:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirinsanity (talk • contribs)

Even if newt was cancelled we should still include something in one of the tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.80.38 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard in a forum today that they say Pixar's next film will be a Western, but no title has been revealed. Any info on when the title will be revealed?? I'll be surprised if no title will be revealed by the time Cars 2 is in theatres. Georgia guy (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forums are no good for reliable sources, but if you find a good source it should most likely be added. My guess is that there won't be anything substantial written about a 15th film, for a while now.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Story was definitely NOT released in 1987! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.38.63 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Movies are "Operation: C.H.R.I.S.T.M.A.S." and "The Pirates Movie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.154.178 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are only badly-written "suggestion" blog posts. Not real. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]