This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: Films Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Animated films work group. Film: Animated 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 Animated films task force. Lists Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The page says "CGI characters are only included if they are portrayed as visually distinct from their live-action surroundings—otherwise, the majority of live-action movies which use CGI visual effects would be included." However, that's a very unclear statement on what that means. I fail to see how Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows meets that requirement, but Avatar (2009 film) and films in the MCU don't. I do think there is a distinct difference between a hybrid animation/live-action film and a live action film that uses CGI for visual effects, but I cannot think of an objective way to determine the difference. I'm hoping that someone can think of a clearer definition. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFCBEFORE, where have you discussed this already? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has commented at all on this talk page in well over 2 years, I thought that it would be okay if I used an RFC to get people to actually see the comment. If I was wrong, you can make this just a regular discussion, though I feel that it turning into a RFC is inevitable because I doubt enough people will participate without one. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is not a means for initiating discussion but an instrument of last resort, used when all other reasonable methods have been exhausted and the problem is still not resolved. There are four WikiProject banners at the top of this page; so if you want people to "actually see the comment", you should post a notice to one or more of their talk pages. Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:WikiProject please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another normal way to get people who care to comment if they don't otherwise is to decide on your own a clear and sensible definition and put it in the page. WP:BOLD. And if no one comments then, there may be no point in soliciting comments, and it would be a better use of RfC participants' time not to do so. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is comfortable with triggering Cunningham's law... WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any of the films you mention as examples, but are you sure that the included ones are meant to be included? Maybe the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film needs to be removed.

As for an objective standard, the easiest one is probably that it's classified as a live action film by some reasonably comprehensive source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the difference is the fact that in the TMNT films, the main characters are 100% animated, much like Stuart Little, Sonic the Hedgehog, and many of the others in the list. Characters in the MCU are portrayed by actors, with CGI effects added - but they are not animated characters; while Avatar was live-action motion capture, with animated effects added in post-production. SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JDDJS, Redrose64, Giraffedata, WhatamIdoing, and SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven: newest comment Braganza (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia entry for The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water:

"Like the first film, the final act places the animated characters in a live-action world. However, unlike the first film, the animated characters become animated in CGI in the live-action world."

Having had a read of their Wiki entries, all three of the films feature parts that combine animation with live-action, but I haven't seen them, so I don't know to what extent. SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we discussed in the past and the outcome was no for all the SpongeBob filmsFanoflionking3 (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanoflionking3 there was never a discussion as far i can see it, a reply to a comment from 2019 where the replyer only claims that it was already discussed linking to an earlier discussion Talk:List of highest-grossing live-action/animated films/Archive 1#sponge out of water (2 Jan 2015) which doesn't appear to have actually be resolved as Spongebob was still listed in a list on 26 Jan 2015 Braganza (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do these count, as a large potion of the content in these films (especially the world movies) comes from CGI characters. The films have a distinct "art-style" as well, considering that they refuse to update the designs of the dinosaurs to reflect modern Palaeontology. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No ss CGI characters are only included if they are portrayed as visually distinct from their live-action surroundings—otherwise, the majority of live-action movies which use CGI visual effects would be included. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before this movie comes out, i think we should clear

Despite it might falling into the definition i'd argue to not include it since it is stated to be another "live-action remake" Braganza (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disney label The Lion king remake as live action but it is a animated film

Very few of these films are marketed as a live action animated film.

Stitch is a animated character the other aliens are also animated.

The human are human

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanoflionking3 i know but Snow White, Beauty and the Beast and Arielle also have animated characters but they fall under "CGI characters are only included if they are portrayed as visually distinct from their live-action surroundings", Stich goes to an extreme though if it counts or not Braganza (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page describes it as live action animated Hollywood reporter also described it as “live-action/CG hybrid” ^[1]

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Beauty and the Beast: "it is a live-action/animated remake of Disney's 1991 animated film Beauty and the Beast" Braganza (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast Characters portrayed by actors with CGI effects added - but they are not animated characters; while Stitch is animated Fanoflionking3 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not all of them, and this is not even the rule. The rule is if a CGI character is "portrayed as visually distinct from their live-action surroundings" (to quote yourself) and i am asking if Stich's redesign is *realistic* enough to count or not not if he is an animated character at all or not Braganza (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not think it realistic enough to count BATATB is realistic enough to not count there a clear difference between miss potts and stitch

We can see if there a third opinion to this and other films you think should or should not be one the list just list there down in the list i made just below and we can discuss them furtherFanoflionking3 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a list of films that we are discussing should or should not be one the list as requested by User:Braganza

1. Lilo and Stitch (2025 film)
2. Jurassic Park (film series)
3. SpongeBob SquarePants (film series)
4. Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)
5. How to Train Your Dragon (2025 film)
6. The Smurf Movie
7. Fantastic Beasts
8. The Water Horse

Fanoflionking3 (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. soft no, 2. no, 3. yes, 4. no, 5. neutral/lean no, 6. yes, 7. no Braganza (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could include them all, especially where the list currently is only 2 movies. These would all qualify as they have live actors/CGI and are based on previous works. I'm not sure about Jurassic Park though. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza Feel free to added films to the list above Fanoflionking3 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lilo and Stitch, dragons, water horse and the upcoming Smurfs should on the list the other no Fanoflionking3 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (Summoned by bot) AFAI can see, the root problem here lies with the actual definition(s) of 'live-action/animated films' and whether individual films comply. The 'grossing' element doesn't appear to be part of the dispute. It would help the RfC if both definition and sources for and against individual films were offered. Otherwise we're all just being asked to offer our own PoV. Pincrete (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]