Talk:Warner Bros. Animation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Please stop re-adding animated titles that Warner Bros. distributed. Warner Bros. Animation isn't involved in distribution; they're just a division of Warner Bros. —tregoweth (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Just re-re-removed this same tired list. -FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template Suggestion[edit]

Shouldn't we make a Template for this like others? You can view my page here to see what I mean. I asked because I don't know how to make a Template.--Mato Rei 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworks[edit]

What is the Dreamworks stuff doing in the infobox? – Ilse@ 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No merger.[edit]

This article is not to be merged with Warner Bros. Cartoons, for reasons already explaine and discussed at that article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Library" section.[edit]

Someone decided to drop a long and unreferenced "Library" section into the bottom of the article. If that person, or someone else, can reference and cite Warners' ownership of all of these assets, it can go back in. Otherwise, here it sits. Note that this is a cleaned up version I attempted to fix up, before I myself started questioning a few of the items on here.

Library[edit]

Warner Bros. Animation also manages the animation holdings of Warner Bros. Entertainment. Aside from works produced by Warner Bros. Animation since 1980 and any animated films distributed by Warner Bros., the division also manages the rights to the following works:

Warner Home Video also has DVD rights to programs produced by Cartoon Network and Adult Swim, as well as the Peanuts TV specials and series.


Here's an updated version with more information:

Library[edit]

Warner Bros. Animation also manages the vast animation holdings of Warner Bros. Entertainment, which include various aforementioned acquisitions.

Warner retains ownership of all the animated works they themselves produced and/or distributed, including:

In addition, Warner has also acquired several other animated works through various mergers and acquisitions

WB also has VHS/DVD rights to programs produced by Cartoon Network and Adult Swim.

WB also has DVD rights to The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show, This is America, Charlie Brown, and the Peanuts TV specials.

Some of these programs can be seen on the Kids' WB website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.34.84 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "libraries" is misspelled in the header for this section.

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it happens[edit]

Should films and TV shows that have simply been announced still be listed? These productions may never come off and if they do it could take a few years to make after that announcement. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They probably shouldn't be listed until there's some evidence that they're actually going to be produced. Trivialist (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also some house keeping on the current items. One thing is on the Wacky Races item. The only source listed on it is a toonzone thread. The only real evidence so far is a logo and an Upfront saying it's a reboot that is expected to air in 2016. Nothing has really mentioned if it's a ongoing series or a special/movie. Wacky Races would be "rebooted" in either. And also I checked the source and the one on the Jetsons article assumes it's 2016, although other wrestling news sites instead said 2017. And while there's no real source able information to it without a date from the studio, I'd say the pattern speculates more towards 2017. If you want to keep it because that's what the sourced article says I agree, but at the same time that source doesn't have any definitive information on a date. So maybe a TBA would be better. I also can't find the original post about the script from February/March 2015 but is second-hand referenced in this report from another wrestling site. Which someone can judge if found, since I can stand behind seeing said article making the current source incorrect that it was broken first on the Animation Guild page. [1]

I'll leave any actual editing to more experienced hands, as to whether they'd prefer to leave things as is until they are officially here with dates or not.24.35.37.226 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.gerweck.net/2015/09/18/wwe-studios-moving-forward-with-another-animated-movie-wwe-vs-hanna-barbera-in-the-works/

Are the last few movie release dates real?[edit]

Are the release dates for the films after scoob real? Jstar367 (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory[edit]

Why does Tom and Jerry: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which appears to be completely imaginary, keep getting added to the article? Trivialist (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Obviously this has since been proven to be an actual thing. Trivialist (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been an animated adaptation of Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the addition of Tom and Jerry; a direct-to-video feature film called Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (2017), based on the 1971 live action/special effects musical film that was originally distributed by Paramount Pictures and currently by Warner Bros. Pictures. Today, there are only 14 feature-length movies from the Tom and Jerry franchise, beginning with Tom and Jerry: The Movie (1992, 1993). Previously, a new theatrical film starring the cat and mouse duo is announced in April of 2015, but since October of 2018 (25 years after Tom and Jerry: The Movie receives a home video release), it's currently in development to become a live action/animated hybrid film.
Um, thanks, but that's not connected to my original question. Trivialist (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Warner Bros. Animation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting "Warner Animation Group" into another page[edit]

Currently, "Warner Animation Group" redirects to this page, and the page itself says that "Warner Bros. Animation" labels itself as "Warner Animation Group" for theatrically released films; there is enough evidence showing that WBA and WAG are two separate entities. For starters, "Warner Bros. Animation" is listed as part of Warner Bros. Television Group via the Warner Bros. careers website, mainly deals in television series and direct-to-home/streaming films, and is headed by Sam Register as President. During December 2017, Deadline reported that Allison Abbate and Chris Leahy were named executives at Warner Animation Group and both answer to the President and CCO of Warner Bros. Pictures (Toby Emmerich), and the President of Production and Development at Warner Bros. Pictures (Courtenay Valenti), showing that WAG is its own studio under Warner's film division and not their television division. Lastly, WAG's logo appears on the marketing material for all of their post-The Lego Movie productions (see, the posters for Storks, Smallfoot, The Lego Ninjago Movie on their respective pages). Teen Titans Go! to the Movies, an upcoming theatrical animated feature from WB, features WBA's logo on the poster because it is being produced at the television division, making the Wikipedia article's claim that all theatrical animated features from WB are labeled WAG's inaccurate. Taking this information into account and giving that WAG is becoming a major animation film studio with five released films under their belt and a number of others under development, I feel it deserves its own separate page. --J.Severe (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. A lot of the sarticle seems to be assembled from guesses based on watching film and TV credits. Trivialist (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we remove all the Warner Animation Group projects from this page now? Because it is now known that WAG is part of Warner Bros. Pictures while Warner Bros. Animation is a part of Warner Bros. Television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duperon-Droz (talk • contribs)
Is it, though? Trivialist (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans Go! To the Movies[edit]

Is Teen Titans Go! To the Movies a Warner Animation Group film? The trailer for the film does not feature the WAG logo, and the source that lists the movie does not specifically say Warner Animation Group. 50.50.122.181 (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Barbera as a "division"[edit]

I reverted this edit, which inserted a claim that Hanna Barbera is a division of Warner Bros. Animation. As Hanna Barbera dissolved in 2001, it cannot be a division of Warner Bros. Animation. Please do not add this in unless you find a source that states otherwise. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018[edit]

Can you please change this part back from:

"Warner Bros. Animation is the animation division of Warner Bros."

To:

"Warner Bros. Animation is the animation division of Warner Bros., a subsidiary of WarnerMedia."

The other paragraph says "Since 1990, Warner Bros. Animation has primarily focused upon the production of television and feature animation of other properties, notably including those related to WarnerMedia's DC Comics publications since 1992", but it's not even linked. 186.115.82.208 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not (yet) formally answering this edit request, but do want to note here that I reworded the second paragraph to remove mentions of WarnerMedia since D.C. and Hanna-Barbera are both controlled by Warner Bros. For now, I leave it up to other editors to assess whether it's appropriate to mention WarnerMedia in the opening line of the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Elizabete de Lima Silva (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant why WBA wasn't involved with this show.

Warner Bros. Animation was never involved with this show in the first place, because it was done by other companies in the U.S., Canada and France. But WBE still owns the trademark and copyrights for the original series, so Shen Gong Wus got renamed and Dojo got yellow. Also, a chunk of the crew of the original series also returned, so...

It's weird, even for me. I hope I wasn't incomprehensible with this explanation.

(Sidenote: Here's a tip: watch the credits. Pause to read the info.) Andrei Bondoc (talk) 08:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2019[edit]

Please apply the changes in this diff: [1] 5.104.90.107 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 16:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaolin Chronicles[edit]

Why Xiaolin Chronicles is not involved with Warner Bros. Animation?

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020[edit]

The first animated film that Warner Bros. released in the 1990s decade is The Nutcracker Prince in 1990, not Rover Dangerfield. It came out a year before the latter and it also under-performed due to lack of promotion and received negative reviews. Can anyone please mention that on this article? Filmlover4654 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change this sentence from:
"In 1991, Warner Bros. distributed its first animated film, ''[[Rover Dangerfield]]''. Its title character is a dog whose look and mannerisms are inspired by his voice actor [[Rodney Dangerfield]]. The film received mixed reviews and under-performed at the box office due to lack of promotion.{{Citation needed|date=April 2016}} Three years later, Warner distributed [[Don Bluth]]'s ''[[Thumbelina (1994 film)|Thumbelina]]'', which also received mixed reviews from critics and under-performed at the box office."
To:
"During the rise of the animation renaissance in the early 1990s, Warner Bros. distributed its first animated films: ''[[The Nutcracker Prince]]''<ref name="latimes 1997">https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-01-ca-64365-story.html</ref><ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-30-ca-2092-story.html</ref> in 1990, which is a Canadian-produced feature film based on [[E. T. A. Hoffmann]]'s classic holiday tale ''[[The Nutcracker and the Mouse King]]''; and ''[[Rover Dangerfield]]''<ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-08-19-ca-3048-story.html</ref> in 1991, whose title character is a dog whose look and mannerisms are inspired by his voice actor [[Rodney Dangerfield]]. Both films received negative and mixed reviews respectively and under-performed at the box office due to lack of promotion.<ref name="latimes 1997"/><ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-21-ca-4466-story.html</ref><ref>https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-22-ca-3857-story.html</ref> Three years later after the release of ''Rover Dangerfield'', Warner distributed [[Don Bluth]]'s ''[[Thumbelina (1994 film)|Thumbelina]]'', which also received mixed reviews from critics and under-performed at the box office.<ref name="latimes 1997"/>"
Filmlover4654 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reliable source as well: <ref>{{cite video|people=Schreck, Kevin (Director)|title=''[[Persistence of Vision (film)|Persistence of Vision]]''|medium=film documentary (and DVD bonus features)|location=USA/UK|year=2012}}</ref> Filmlover4654 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: Citing DVD extras for articles is problematic since it presents verifiability issues. Is there a printed source that you can cite? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-06-01-ca-64365-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-30-ca-2092-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-08-19-ca-3048-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-21-ca-4466-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-22-ca-3857-story.html
Filmlover4654 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you guys changing this sentence yet? These are the sources I provided. Filmlover4654 (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added the reference links in the sentence. Filmlover4654 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmlover4654:, please have some patience. There is no-one who's job it is to answer edit requests. I have been trying to verify your offered references and all of them I've looked at so far have failed verification. When I get a chance, I will try to find the others and see what can be used. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: I need to verify that these three sources mention The Nutcracker Prince, and these other two sources mention Rover Dangerfield. You need to put either "Nutcracker" or "Rover" in the "find" bar to see the mentions. Filmlover4654 (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn: These references I added don't have "failed verification" as I said before, they're actually accurate so this is true. I've been waiting and yet none of this is being changed. Filmlover4654 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmlover4654:, stop pinging me. I have no responsibility or duty to make your change for you on your self-determined timeline. The more you express frustration at this the less I'm motivated to help you. I edit Wikipedia as a hobby and when it is no longer enjoyable I stop. Congratulations, you've tripped across that line for me with this article. Maybe someone else will take up your demands. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I'm not self-determined or demanding things. People kept thinking that Rover Dangerfield was the studio's first 90s animated feature release when it's actually not. They released another animated movie a year before that. Filmlover4654 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NotTheFakeJTP: Can't you guys please hurry up and change this sentence already? Filmlover4654 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmlover4654: No. I echo what Eggishorn said: I have no responsibility or duty to make your change for you on your self-determined timeline. Ask someone who is active in editing this page or wait your turn. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Filmlover4654, please don't leave your edit request open when you have already made the edit yourself. Meters (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Warner Animation Group which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"reestablishment"[edit]

Does anybody really think this is acceptable grammar? This is why wikipedia has gone down the pan. I can't even correct it because the page is locked until 2027 for some stupid reason. 86.155.235.244 (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2023[edit]

NoName1390 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put this new logo : File:Warner Bros. Animation 2023 Logo.png

 Not done: no reason given as to why we should replace a vector logo with a raster one. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024[edit]

January 1989

Warner Bros. Feature Animation Start date and age 120.22.181.107 (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 15:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warner_Bros._Animation&oldid=1215861106"