Talk:Blue Sky Studios

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

Cleanup[edit]

This article is a mess. Specifically the last paragraph. I'll try to clean it up a bit over the next couple days. BGyss 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VIFX was not "shuttered" as the article states. Rather it was sold to Rhythm & Hues Studios in 1999.

Fair use rationale for Image:Horton-hears-a-who-bluesky.jpg[edit]

Image:Horton-hears-a-who-bluesky.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budgie the Little Helicopter Movie[edit]

Blue Sky Studios will acquired the rights to turn "Budgie the Little Helicopter" into a live-action film, directed by Chris Wedge, released til Spring, 2014 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.167.244 (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Sky Studios developing "The Chinese Legends" (2014)[edit]

the CG animated Film made by Blue Sky Studios about Animals are Crane, Tiger, Praying Mantis, Snake, Monkey, Red Panda and Giant Panda adventuring the China to stop an evil dragon

Blue Sky Studios make this don't reject, don't cancel, don't pushes release dates and don't change this title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.243.231 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ScArt[edit]

Since [[1]] (which.was no Epic) it show that Scrat 4 the [Age (film series)] is the new mascot & is in the new logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon impossible?[edit]

Ok whats pigeon impossible? all i know that its a short theres no plot or anything Jstar367 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Feature Release[edit]

Hey guys on Wikipedia in 2018 in film I saw an upcoming movie title untitled fox/blue sky animation film, and then I went on Movie Insider and I look up on 2018 movies & look at movies coming on July 2018 & I see it again and it's titled Untitled Fox/Blue sky July 2018 Project, and one thing i'm interest about is on July 20th 2018, Blue Sky Studios is going to release a second feature release, after they release their first feature release Anubis in March 23rd 2018. Nicholasstaffiere (talk) 10:31, 5, March, 2016 (UTC)

Anubis release[edit]

Didn't Anubis get taken off it's release date? Jstar367 (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Sky Studios. 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) 06:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Corporation[edit]

Why do not add Fox Corporation here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.122.211.109 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The studio is owned by Disney now, Fox Corporation is for assets retained by Fox after they sold most of their stuff to Disney. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foster (2021 film)[edit]

Hi there,

I'm a pending change reviewer, and have come across this page through doing a PC review. An anonymous user tried to change the next film release for BSS to the 2021 film "Foster", but used the wrong date. I've now corrected it to the announced date according to Variety, but I've since seen over at List of Blue Sky Studios films there's a comment clearly in the page there that Foster shouldn't be added until the date is clearer-defined. The Variety article includes an exact date, and I can't find any sources indicating this has changed - am I missing something?

If someone with experience in this area could take a look at this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! | Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 17:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

blue sky studios — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.143.225 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naypta, I think it's because Disney announced last week that they're shutting down Blue Sky Studios and that all their current projects (including their latest movie Nimona which was in active production and had an official release date) would be cancelled. So, it would take a miracle for a film that hasn't been in active development since 2018 to be released by a studio that's shut down. ref— Starforce13 00:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Left Tern" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Left Tern. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Left Tern until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 05:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Bankruptcy"[edit]

@Traveling Man:@SarahJH07: You both have inserted into the infobox that Blue Sky ended in bankruptcy. However, there is currently no claim of bankruptcy in the article, nor in the sources we're using to discuss the closure. Not all closures are bankruptcy, which is a condition where a company is unable to cover its debts. If you are going to add a claim of bankruptcy, you're going to need a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of Reopening of Blue Sky[edit]

https://ctmirror.org/2011/10/18/blue-sky-studios-expand-again-state-aid/ I want someone to say whether this is a credible resource. If it is I want someone to put this on the page. Spixmacaw101 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While CT Mirror appears to be a reliable source, it is not talking about the possibility of reopening Blue Sky; the article is from 2011, so from well before the studio closed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant[edit]

The Filmography section of this article seems largely redundant, repeating what is already better detailed in List of Blue Sky Studios films. I suggest deleting nearly all of the Filmography section from this article. -- 109.76.129.242 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of tagging it using {{Merge portions from|SourcePage}} or {{Split portions|DestinationPage}} but really it would just be deleting the redundant tables from this article, leaving that to the already better sourced list article. -- 109.76.192.128 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of Blue Sky Studios films needs more sources but already does a better job of listing the same information so I removed the redundant unsourced table from this article.[2] -- 109.79.174.194 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I disagree with this move. Per Wikipedia:Summary style, there's no reason why we can't also have an adequately sourced table on this article summarizing the content in List of Blue Sky Studios films. Per WP:PRESERVE, I feel an effort should have been made to provide adequate sources first before removing the content wholesale. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". The information remains available in another article. The other table in the other article is still not properly sourced and needs work, there is nothing stopping Mz7 from improving it. Even if it was properly sourced it would still be redundant to list it in both articles (but if you really want to argue for including it in both places it could probably be transcluded but it should be fixed first). What purpose does the table really serve anyway? In essence what it says is that Blue Sky films got mixed reviews from critics in most cases[3] (unlike the consistently high praise Pixar has achieved[4]). A high quality article would provide a concise WP:PROSE summary, long dull tables are better left to list articles. -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair enough on the WP:PROSE point. This article has been on my radar for a while (I wrote most of the “History” section, but only managed to cover the early history of the studio). Looking to improve it further when I get the time. Mz7 (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Unrelated question:] Since you seem to know the subject well maybe you can help answer a question and maybe help address a minor problem I have with the article as it stands. Do you really believe the claim that Blue Sky were shut down due to COVID, because although that was the official convenient excuse it seems more likely that a whole lot of Fox subsidiaries were doomed when the merger happened? The chances of finding a reliable source that says that too might be slim and I might not be able to make that counter-argument directly in the article but I'd be interested to get your opinion on it nonetheless. -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Answer to own question:] The article says Disney closed Blue Sky because of COVID but that is a lot like saying someone died because their heart stopped beating, which is true but misleading because it does not necessarily address the underlying cause. I think as close to an answer as I am likely to get is from Deadline Hollywood who wrote "One can say that the writing was always on the wall for Blue Sky, especially after Disney acquired 20th Century Studios and its assets in March 2019."[5] So clearly I'm not the only one who thinks the merger killed Blue Sky even if the financial impact of COVID was the final blow. -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I agree that the circumstances of Disney's acquisition and closure of Blue Sky Studios are indeed a little suspicious—but as far as what this article can say, as you note, we can only include what reliable sources have reported. Even at the time the acquisition was announced (well before COVID-19), there were already "nervous" rumblings within the studio—see [6] “They are nervous,” one source in the tight-knit animation community confides, although he cautions it’s “too early to tell” how the Disney-Fox merger could play out. Mz7 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added the filmography table back in again.[7] The table is still redundant and it is still not properly sourced. I have started by removing the unsourced columns.[8] I still think the table should be removed and the list article List of Blue Sky Studios productions should be used to list the detailed Filmography (they are in table format but it is still a list of films). -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, repeating the table in this article seems entirely unnecessary. That it is not properly sourced and editors keep trying to add even more detail to it without proper sources[9] only makes it worse. -- 109.76.196.239 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is unnecessary it is all of this information on List of Blue Sky Studios productions why do we need to repeat it here 92.236.253.249 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor 92.* removed the redundant filmography table, with an edit summary explaining why. Another editor restored it without any explanation.[10] It still seems redundant to duplicate this information here and also in List of Blue Sky Studios films. -- 109.77.202.114 (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nimona[edit]

Coming from List of Blue Sky Studios productions; someone keeps readding Nimona to the main filmography list, even though it was previously on the List of related productions section. This page also has Nimona in their Filmography section. My question is, was there ever consensus to add Nimona to both lists? Because Blue Sky is defunct and seems the new Netflix film is done by another studio and so far there's no indication that film is the same one Blue Sky was working on before its closure. Both articles mention that a different studio took over production of the film so I don't mind adding a note to reflect this -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 12:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gouleg: Please check the Nimona (film) article, where it site sources indicating that the new production did not start from scratch, and without a direct statement about actual footage it is clear that the voice cast is the same, that the directors are people who were aboard it at Blue Sky, and those would be production decisions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks for the clarification. I'd rather add a note into the main filmography article to reflect that the new studios took over Blue Sky's previous work -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound (she/her) 17:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)::[reply]
Can't say I agree. If the finished work is going to be composed primarily of stuff that was animated by Blue Sky, then that is reasonable a production of the studio. I'd rather see it on the table with a "completed by" note in the co-producers section. The film's history is more completely covered in the "list of" article already. I mean, we still list Plan 9 from Outer Space on Bela Lugosi's filmography even though he had died and many of the character's scenes in the movie were performed by another actor (well, chiropractor.) --Nat Gertler (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Sky_Studios&oldid=1206343595"