Talk:List of computer-animated films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Contents 1 "Notable"? 2 Partially CG? No. 3 Expected growth 4 First Compter Animated Film? 5 Waking Life / South Park 6 CGI Film Rendered Resolutions?

[edit] "Notable"?

"The following is a shorter list of notable computer-animated features". What exactly is "notable"? Is this NOT meant to be a comprehensive list? Who decides what is notable and what isn't - is notabilty decided by whether or not YOU'VE heard of it? Esn 07:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem hurt about the lack of response. Feel free to add to the list, just please keep a cool head; your tone both here and in your comments is too antagonistic for a discussion. I think nobody has responded because any proposal would just be shot down, based on your tone. See WP:N for ideas on what is notable. They're all notable enough for an article each, so how do you get a shorter list? I don't want to become like Timeline of CGI in film and television, always constantly changing and debating on the Talk page. —Wikibarista 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's better to have a concrete guideline that may not please everyone than to have no guideline at all... as you said, any film notable enough to have an article on wikipedia already meets the notability criteria, which made the current guideline practically useless. That is why I was a little angry - what was "notable" wasn't stated so any edit of mine could conceivably be removed by someone who thought it wasn't "notable", and they wouldn't have to give a reason because there was no guideline in the first place. Ok, my proposal is this: "a list of computer-animated features that have been released theatrically". That should weed out the minor straight-to-DVD releases if that's what most of the editors here want. What do you guys think? Esn 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there are only two or three movies in the whole article that aren't released theatrically. This would make the section with the "shorter list" very long. However, if you mean that we shouldn't allow non-theatrical release movies added to the list from now on, then that sounds great. —Wikibarista 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean - only films which have been released theatrically. That way we can have a shorter list of the more notable films. And that way there's a clear criteria for what can be on the list or what can't - right now there's not really any criteria at all, so theoretically someone could add in every single straight-to-DVD computer-animated feature ever released to your list, and he wouldn't be in the wrong because there is no guideline. Or on the other hand, someone could delete every film except the three or four that he thought were "notable", and you also couldn't say that he did anything wrong. Esn 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the criteria to "list of theatrically-released films". You mentioned in an earlier edit that "wikipedia has rough guides on what notable means". The trouble with that is that every film that has an article on wikipedia is notable. I assume you want that list to be a shorter one and not include films like Barbie: Mermaidia, and the only way to do this is to provide strict criteria for what can or cannot be included. "Theatrical release" seems like a fair way to separate them, unless someone objects (I should also like to point out that the English wikipedia has a policy of not giving preferential coverage to those things which are important in English-speaking countries - this means that we cannot make the criteria "films which have had a theatrical release in an English-speaking country" or "films which have had a theatrical release in the United States"). Esn 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you removed years from some of the dates. When I first started Wiki-ing, the date wouldn't be changed to be seen by the user's preferences unless you put a year. Looks like that has changed. Sorry about the mess.

So you added a couple films to the top section, but the list is far from complete, and you're right, they're in the article three times. However, it's a nice summary, so that's why I like it. But it was there when I first found the article. We can also make the shorter list "Films that have made more than US$200,000 worldwide." I could go either way on that. So:

1. We eliminate the first section altogether, or make it strict based on a certain box office number (adjusted for inflation, via Box Office Mojo)
2. Begin with the chronological list from the bottom (more useful than alphabetical) and have the by-studio list second.
3. Remove any direct-to-video or festival-only movies. (move them?)

Since we say in the intro, "a computer-animated film commonly refers to feature films…", so going by the description of feature film, this would be a film released in theaters, therefore allowing us to get rid of all the direct-to-video releases. Perhaps they could be mentioned in the by-studio section in the short studio description if they have some feature films under their belt. —Wikibarista 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partially CG? No.

Final Fantasy?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinb9n (talk • contribs) 17:59, June 15, 2004.

I removed Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron as it was not fully computer animated; however, it creates something of an anomoly. It was a concious blend of CGI and traditional animation, a technique the film's makers dubbed 'tradigital animation.' Would it count, perhaps with an explaination added? I say probably not; Spirit's one of my favorite movies, but it was tradigital, not CGI. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 06:43, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Dinosaur used live-action backgrounds; should it still count as fully computer-animated? —tregoweth 17:25, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we need a section for halfway CGI movies like Spirit and Dinosaur? --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 18:11, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, "Dinosaur" should be removed from this list of fully computer-animated films, because it is not fully computer-animated. It's that simple. --80.100.112.55 23:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)Martijn

I've removed Dinosaur—and added Chicken Little, which wasn't listed yet. —tregoweth 20:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sky captain and the world of tommorow was CGI besides the actors, it's another blurry one like dinosaur — raptor 07:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expected growth

For how much longer are we going to keep extending this list? At some point, computer-animated films will have become so normal and ubiquitous that this list would start looking like List of movies... — Timwi 11:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Compter Animated Film?

Why isnt Catapillars here? Did you neglect to do your homework? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 21:18, November 10, 2005.

Clearly, you didn't add it either, so stop complaining and do your own homework. (P.S. there is no film with that name on IMDb.) — Timwi 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waking Life / South Park

Should a movie like Waking Life be included, or does this list only refer to cartoons?--216.165.33.63 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the South Park movie because it was animated entirely with computers, no traditional stop motion animation. The TV show is created in the same way. 68.228.67.30 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed South Park because, while it is technically animated by computers, so was Waking Life and so have any cartoons created in the past couple years. However, since the common usage for "computer-animated film" refers to 3D movies, I tried to explain this in the intro of the article. It would be unusual to say, "did you see that new computer animated movie-- South Park?" If we disagree, then I would propose an article name change. The focus of the article is to chronicle significant 3D CG movies, but I thought that would make the article too long, so I tried to fix it by explaining the common usage. —Wikibarista 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CGI Film Rendered Resolutions?

Where can I find info on the resolutions that CGI films have been rendered in? According to the Computer-generated imagery article, Toy Story was originally at 1536 x 922 (though I suspect it was rerendered at different resolutions for DVD and future High Definition transfers) and I'd like to see a list of the resolutions for all CGI films. I wouldn't want that info included in this article, but maybe a dedicated list?: Resolutions of computer-animated films