This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 / Films / 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 Animated films work group (assessed as Low-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]

i wrote a letter pixar about christmas film. it will be real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.154.178 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a letter does not prove it will be real. Studios simply do not create films based on fan-letters. We need verifiable, reputable sources to prove this will happen. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wilson's Kitchen" and "The Incredibles 2: Rise of the Underminer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.246.120 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google news search on Wilson's Kitchen doesn't reveal this film. Georgia guy (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredibles 2: Rise of the Underminer (Released on September 20, 2013) [1] and Wilson Kitchen (Released on November 9, 2012) [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.246.120 (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I wrote above, a Google search doesn't reveal these titles. Georgia guy (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh please let pixar make these movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.251.123 (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. Also, the honest reply is that they will not be made. Pixar has their own creative team(s) who create and develop their films. They don't go looking around at websites for ideas. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The HTML comment says not to put Toy Story 4 as the title of #15. However, it makes sense that the untitled original is #15 and Toy Story 4 is #16. Any opinions on what to do with having the table say that Toy Story 4 is #16?? If not, please improve the HTML comment. Georgia guy (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Story 4 was only confirmed that it is in the works, still it may not be #15, 16, or even 17. However, many still think that Toy Story 4 is #15, where #15 was confirmed to not be a sequel, leaving Toy Story out of the list for #15. So in order to prevent further speculation, that is why I added that note. If you do not like it, feel free to remove it. Giggett (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar hasn't announced the film that comes after Monsters University yet, but it says on the article that the film that is coming after Monsters University will be released on this date. Are we 100% sure that's true, considering the fact that we don't even know what the film is yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.97.42 (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know the film, but we don't know its title yet. Please be extra-patient. The title should be revealed by the summer of 2012 if not earlier. Georgia guy (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Imdb a reliable source?? Does it lie a lot about release dates?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information is user-submitted and not checked for accuracy. While you wont find an absurdly large amount of wrong information, it does happen. Sometimes film articles are created when the film isn't being created, sometimes people add dates that aren't correct. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add the IMDB votes in the "Critical and public reception" section? GianoM (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Project called "Operation: C.H.R.I.S.T.M.A.S" is a Upcoming Christmas-themed Film?

Google search doesn't reveal anything about this title. Georgia guy (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the 2014 film is the same as the November 2013 film only with the release date pushed back. (The external link reveals that this is one possibility.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/pixar-announces-two-new-films_n_932198.html?ir=Entertainment reveals the title Dinosaurs for #15 and Inside the Brain for #16; although we don't know if this has been proven to be right because actual release dates can mismatch planned ones. In 2008, it was revealed that the sequence after Toy Story 3 was going to be Newt, The Bear and the Bow, Cars 2. Later, however, Newt was cancelled, The Bear and the Bow was re-titled Brave, and Cars 2 was pushed up so that it comes before Brave. For the time being, let's accept this order (revealed by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/pixar-announces-two-new-films_n_932198.html?ir=Entertainment) as long as there's no proof that it's wrong. Georgia guy (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, an anon IP added a 17th Pixar film, ostensibly to be directed by Lee Unkrich. The source was an article discussing how Unkrich was using his Twitter feed and a Tumblr log to photographically capture his progress, one photo at a time. After reading the article, I removed it from the table of confirmed films (Brave, Monsters University and the unnamed films on dinosaurs and the human mind) and instead added it to the paragraph afterwards, since it's not clear exactly what project he's working on. Yes he's one of Pixar's top directors, and yes this could indeed be another Pixar feature film, but he could be added as a co-director to one of the aformentioned films, or this could be something totally different (a la 1906). Put simply, it's speculation to say that this is the next Pixar feature, but the information is no less valid, and could indeed be the first step to something we'll cover in the near future here. --McDoobAU93 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info should be known by this time next year. Please be patient. Georgia guy (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know that there are several kinds of films that don't belong in the Disney animated features canon. However, is there any official info on whether Pixar Canada films belong in the Pixar canon?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Pixar Canada and Pixar Emeryville would be no different than the various Walt Disney Animation Studios branches that existed in France and in Florida that supported the main studio in California. The France studio worked on Tarzan, while the Florida studio at Walt Disney World had a hand in most everything from The Little Mermaid through to Home on the Range, to say nothing of its three films where it was the lead studio: Mulan, Lilo & Stitch and Brother Bear. If Pixar Canada is supporting Pixar Emeryville, then it wouldn't matter. If they start doing direct-to-home releases or TV animation, then it would be different. Let's wait until their first project gets going before we set things in stone. --McDoobAU93 19:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google news site are revealing more about this Pixar film. Definitely too much to be inside this article, which is merely a list of films with no info on what the films are. And because this film isn't a sequel, we can't merge it anywhere. Any suggestions on creating an article?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long answer: Per the Films WikiProject, articles on upcoming films shouldn't be started until the film is confirmed to be in production. Animated films must have reached the stage where actual scenes from the film are being drawn/rendered, and, pending reliable sources stating otherwise, it's unlikely any of these unnamed Pixar works have gotten that far yet. Short answer: no article yet. --McDoobAU93 17:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We now know that "Frozen" will be released in the fall of 2013. For the 2014 schedule, there are 3 flavors, and we should know which flavor is correct by the end of 2012:

1. "Dinosaurs" is released in the summer and "Inside the Mind" is released in the fall.
2. "Inside the Mind" is released in the summer and "Dinosaurs" is released in the fall.
3. One Pixar film will be released in the summer of 2014 and the other of these will be postponed until 2015.

Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flurry of edits around the announcement/leak of Frozen merely says that it has taken the Pixar dinosaur film's release date, nothing more. Anything else is speculation and forum chatter. --McDoobAU93 16:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately what this article mentions as film #17's title is wordy that I doubt people will remember it. Georgia guy (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the Findong Nemo 2-film, is it "Escape From Oilglobs"? SpikeJones (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have some good news. The film Newt is back in production. Its releases in 2017. Fly i flint (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fake news. Google News search on Pixar doesn't reveal it. Georgia guy (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixar 2017 films ars Cars 3 and Coco. Newt is not on their website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.133.157 (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up!!! Newt is back in production!!! I saw it at the cinema when i went too see Brave!!! Fly i flint (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove it's the Pixar film and not just any film with that title?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has been treated as "news," THR and Deadline both reported on this film (Finding Nemo 2) with NO SOURCES, and Andrew Stanton tweeted (albiet somewhat ambiguously) that it was not happening. How can this film be categorized as "in production" when there is no proof that it is in fact in production, with proof that says the contrary? --Legoguy92 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What proof is there that FN2 is not in production?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Stanton's Tweet. This was posted later on in the day after Deadline supposedly "broke" the story. Just because a website says it's true, it does not mean that it is true. Neither Pixar nor Disney confirmed that the film is in production, nor did anyone who works for Pixar or Disney. A film is categorized as "rumored" until announced by a studio, NOT "in production." --Legoguy92 (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article Andrew Stanton reveals he's someone who works at Pixar. Georgia guy (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. The point I am making is that Stanton is alluding to the fact that the movie is NOT in production, as he was rumored to be the director. Read the tweet. He's saying not to believe everything you read and there is "nothing to see here," meaning the movie is NOT currently being produced. Until there is substantial evidence from the studio or Stanton himself that the film is happening, the film is rumored. Deadline.com saying that "an anonymous reliable source" told them is most certainly NOT a reliable source. --Legoguy92 (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the table here was massive with far too much information, this should just be an overview of the Pixar films. I removed the imdb column as it generally shouldn't be used as a source and I don't think it added anything when there are columns for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I also removed the runtime column as I really don't think it is needed. I question whether the directors, storywriters and screenplay writers are all needed but I have left them for the time being. Sanders11 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is toy story 4 the untitled film?

What do you think? They have to make it. After 3 have over $1,000,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.79.4 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's probably the same film as the "Dia de los Muertos" film, but because of Wikipedia's "Verifiability, not just truth" requirement, Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that it's different until sources reveal otherwise. Georgia guy (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just was looking at my Pixar Short Films Volume 2, and there is a trailer for a 2013 movie called Planes. It was alluded to at the end of the Mater Tales - Air Mater. Someone might want to add it to the In-Production section. Rcollett (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a Pixar film. Georgia guy (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This table has had for a long time an untitled film it's for the fall of 2015. Any proof that this film is not the same as Dia de los Muertos, which is now expected to be released in 2016?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This untitled film is probably the same as "Dia de los Muertos"; and the source that revealed the film didn't bother to reveal the film's subject. However, Carinolus says that although the 2 films are probably the same, as part of Wikipedia's WP:VNT, Wikipedia is supposed to assume that they are different. It appears that all un-registered Wikipedians are assuming that they are definitely different, as I can tell by a number of edits. Any thoughts from anyone besides me and Carinolus?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this title came from:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/04/02/title-image-from-pixars-finding-dory-the-sequel-to-finding-nemo/

Although this site says it's official per info in the top of the article, please note this text from the bottom of the page:

Disclaimer: This site is full of news, gossip and rumour. You are invited to use your discretion and intelligence when discerning which is which. BleedingCool.com cannot be held responsible for falling educational standards. Bleeding Cool is neither fair nor balanced, but it is quite fun.

This means that this isn't sufficient for this film. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on bleedingcool.com but a link from Disney.com's main page including the title image as well as reports in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/finding-dory-disneypixar-lands-ellen-degeneres-for-2015-sequel-to-finding-nemo/2013/04/02/516cd51e-9bbf-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html) and the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-finding-nemo-sequel-release-date-dory-ellen-degeneres-20130402,0,2156856.story) might be good enough.Naraht (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Dory, whose release date is 2 1/2 years from now, now has its own article; while Inside Out, whose release is only 2 years from now, doesn't. Any thoughts on how much sense this makes?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and write one, be bold, as long as there's reliable sources however; that's where most editors get picky about. - Rebel shadow 03:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems appropriate since the short films aren't included in the article.

The Critical Reception section has been deleted and restored several times in the last week. Discussion here, I guess.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Tables featuring Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table for upcoming films needs to be updated. The Good Dinosaur was moved to the date Finding Dory had (so now there isn't a Pixar film in 2014, and it comes out after Inside Out). Finding Dory was moved to the date that the Día de los Muertos film had. Alphius (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof that this film will indeed be released in 2017 based on recent reliable sources?? (In other words, it's not just Wikipedia's estimate.) Georgia guy (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Día de los Muertos is titled Coco and will be released on November 22, 2017.

67.248.80.50 (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No edit has been proposed. --McDoobAU93 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

67.248.80.50 (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No edit has been proposed. --McDoobAU93 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[3 is in the works] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in morphing the table to resemble the one at theList of Walt Disney Animation Studios films article? Somehow when the Pixar films table got more detailed it got more divided. Rebel shadow 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually prefer the current version of the table. For me, the main point of a table is that the same information stands next to each other, in one column, so it is easy to compare. Disney's format takes too much time to find, for an example, producer of an individual film.--Carniolus (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, let's hope it doesn't get too bloated. -- Rebel shadow 07:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

2017_in_film#April_.E2.80.93_June — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--77.101.38.140 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Dennis the Menace[reply]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E91:680:206C:5442:C577:45B3 (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are the colors on the 'reception' table for? I think it looks bad, just my opinion.

66.203.18.56 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... something needs to be done about it. Zmcdermo (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone completely pulled a space cadet on the upcoming table but I don't know how to fix it

66.203.18.56 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the hoax film names, it's fixed now. If not, feel free to describe what you believe is wrong and we'll discuss it here. --McDoobAU93 19:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the hoax stuff is what I meant thanks

66.203.18.56 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar is a CGI production company based in Emeryville, California, United States.

should be

Pixar is an American computer animation film studio based in Emeryville, California, United States.

Rrrwwww (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I don't understand the difference and I don't see how the longer text improves the encyclopedia. Can you please explain a little better? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a section highlighting cast members (not crew members who have applied voices but actors who have been prominently featured) John Ratzenberger is the most frequent.

• Oppose For several reasons: 1. The way this table is formatted, it is already too wide, and will be wider with each new Pixar's film. 2. Except for Ratzenberger, there are no other actors that have really recurring roles in the Pixar's films. Film sequels do not count, since it is logical that they would feature old actors, who appear because they have to and not because Pixar prefers to cooperate with them. That leaves a few professional voice actors, who lend their voices to many animated films. In the Pixar's films, they mostly have a line or two, and are mostly credited as additional voices, so I don't think they are notable.--Carniolus (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/the.incredibles.2.updates.movie.to.be.released.end.of.2017.or.mid.2018.3d.version.in.the.works/60640.htm Georgia guy (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. If you follow links that this article is citing you would find that one does not mention any release dates, and other two are using phrases like "rumors claimed", "was rumored" and "the speculated release date..." One of them is even citing Wikia...--Carniolus (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is realize at all. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through WP:NFF and while I generally think it needs work, as currently written, it *only* applies to whether *articles* should exist for films not yet in production. The only films in the table that are not sequels are Finding Dory (which I'd be amazed that there aren't final production frames in existence given it is 4 months away) and Coco. WP:NFF may apply to whether a separate article should exist for Coco, but IMO, it does not govern what should be in this article.Naraht (talk)

I'll give those who are so zealous about this the benefit of a doubt. But the title "In production" is inaccurate; films are not in production until principal photography begins. I changed to "Planned films". And there's another policy involved (WP:NFF is a guideline): WP:CRYSTAL. Films in 2020 that are simply described as "Animation" with no detail except a projected date clearly violate that policy.

I just think the list of Pixar films shouldn't have to have sub-columns in the table, but it's obvious that some people are against it. --TVBuff90 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]