This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
the article attached to this page, help out with the
open tasks, or contribute to the
discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
I suggest we re-title the article to accommodate for Disney live-action remakes of Disney live-action films such as Pete's Dragon.
Support: I agree because there are some remakes of films that aren't animated on development, while The Lion King was made almost completly with
computer animation.
Rose Red has been added but Bald Mountain and Charming don't have a status yet. Genies has definitely heen cancelled. -
HenryBarnill (
talk) 10:00, 28 February 2018 (PTC)
Inclusion criteria
Why would Alice in Wonderland be excluded but Maleficent and Christopher Robin included, what standards are applying here?
★Trekker (
talk) 05:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Do we have a source that 1994 Jungle book is adapted from the 1967 film? Or that The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is inspired by Fantasia 2000? (also is there any way the article could be renamed as to include Pete's Dragon?) --
Elzbenz (
talk) 11:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
List of Disney live-action reimaginings of animated films's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡ 15:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is inappropriately titled
Request to correct the title of this article to "List of Disney live-action remakes of animated films".
The word "reimaginings" amounts to marketing copy in this context. The hyperlink over the word in the article points to a no longer present block on the page on
remakes. The content on that page involving "reimaginings" has also since been revised, and almost all references to the word have been removed in favor of describing remakes as remakes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:401:502:833B:BD2F:9BDD:CE0B:8386 (
talk) 04:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Requested move 19 December 2018
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below.
Dekimasuよ! 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose and move to
List of Disney remakes - The current scope of this list is unclear and of questionable merit, bordering on
WP:OR. There are so many "gotchas" in the current and proposed titles that we are left with something which is both limited and ill-defined. Certainly "live-action" is inaccurate when discussing full-CGI films like the upcoming The Lion King and only questionably accurate when the primary characters are CGI. Clearly, "remakes" is far more concise and and used than "reimaginings". And that the original film must be animated is an arbitrary limitation. --
Netoholic@ 14:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - "remake" is more common and understood. Keep the general scope: Live-action remakes of animated films. This is getting a lot of attention for Disney films, e.g. at
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=disneyliveaction.htm, although the exact inclusion criteria varies. Maybe we should include all films which are sometimes included by sources and not make our own selection. But all remakes by a studio is not treated as a topic by sources and we don't list it for other studios.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 16:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom - "live-action remakes of animated films" is much more clear.
Paintspot Infez (
talk) 18:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. Yes, reimagining is marketing fluff in this case at least, I notice it's currently a redirect to remake, and better and easily avoided. The scope of the list is a separate issue (and I doubt that anyone would have noticed it apart from this RM, and/or will care enough to pursue it... but either way let us move on).
Andrewa (
talk) 15:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Alice′s films
Similar to a
section above about 1994's The Jungle Book, should these films be on the list? Unlike the others on the list, which are based on the stories and characters of the
animated films, these are based on Lewis Carroll's novels, not on the 1951 film. --
BrookTheHumming (
talk) 15:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Of course, there's the question of whether or not a film such as
The Lion King (2019 film) can in fact be regarded as "live-action" given that it is almost entirely computer-animated, but perhaps I digress.
PC78 (
talk) 23:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Disney hasn't made remakes of films from other studios but if they do later then I think it should be included here. Studios usually only remake their own films due to rights but Disney has bought several studios including Pixar and Fox. Also, the suggested title sounds like it could include other studios making remakes of Disney films. I don't think that should be included if it happens (Disney will probably try to prevent it from happening).
PrimeHunter (
talk) 01:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't that sound crystal ball-ish?
Unreal7 (
talk) 09:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The title itself is not crystal-ballish. We are allowed to consider the future when we select titles. I think the scope of the list should be remakes made by Disney and not remakes of films made by Disney. Those sets may diverge at some point. Even if they don't, readers may not now that and wonder whether the list is omitting Disney remakes of films not originally by Disney.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 10:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
We Got This Covered is not a reliable source
I see that all the planned projects have We Got This Covered as source, that site is not reliable.
Babar Suhail (
talk) 14:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Aside from agreeing with
Kasper2006 on the title change for the sake of adding Pete's Dragon (2016) on here, The Jungle Book (1994) should stop being removed from the list for some strange reason and why aren't announced adaptations of Hercules, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, and Treasure Planet mentioned? Plus, don't forget a sequel to Aladdin (2019) was recently discussed. --
Cineplex (
talk) 09:44PM, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
This film is the odd man out here as it doesn't have Disney Copyright Notice.
DoctorHver (
talk) 23:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) should be included since it is a remake of a segment from Fantasia (1940) and as such satisfies the "requirements" given by the title of the webpage. (in my opinion, it is even less questionable than sequels such as 102 Dalmatians).
Ioiops (
talk) 11:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)reply
These Are Not Remakes
A remake is taking the story from the previous film... and remaking it. Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, and the Lion King are all great examples of this. Maleficent isn't a remake of Snow White, it's a movie based on the story. Aladdin II isn't a remake of Aladdin (though the current live action version is) it's a sequel. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Teamcoltra (
talk •
contribs) 06:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree. The article really needs a different title to be more accurate, but I can't really think of anything that would be accurate while covering everything. "Reimaginings" in place of "remakes" would be somewhat more accurate but still kind of misleading.
Alphius (
talk) 23:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)reply
That contradicts the title of the article as well as the lede: This list does not include remakes of live-action/animation hybrid films. I'd suggest making a proposal to move the title (and thus changing the definition of the list), and see if you can get sufficient consensus for that proposal. See
Wikipedia:Requested moves. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I mean, the criteria described in the intro section are completely arbitrary to begin with. Not to mention the facts that a bunch of the movies aren't even remakes and The Lion King isn't even live-action; the article really needs a better title.
Alphius (
talk) 00:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Pocahontas (upcoming Disney live-action film)
Yalitza Aparicio wants a deal to play as Pocahontas. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
181.222.83.87 (
talk) 01:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)reply
People keep disagreeing on how the live-action remake of The Hunchback of Notre Dame will be titled.
Georgia guy (
talk) 15:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Awful colors
The colors that User Maxmbogs recently added to the Reception table are completely unnecessary
[5] No good reason was given for adding these colors, and no good reason was given for adding them back after I removed them. Please show some
WP:GOODFAITH and follow the
WP:SIMPLE rules by explaining your changes with an edit summary.
Please see
MOS:COLOR and {{
Overcolored}}. The color is a distraction not an enhancement, it makes things worse for readers not better. (I have
discussed this before, at length, but I simply suggest you look at it the
awful colors and read
MOS:COLOR again.) If the colors were actually saying anything significant it should also be said as
WP:PROSE but the colors do add not add anything useful at all.
Just because you can does not mean you should. This kind of unhelpful over decoration is a thing of the past that I had hoped Wikipedia had grown out of, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I know
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and a few articles still seem to think this is a good idea (or simply no one bothered to remove it yet) but was a bad idea to begin with and should not have been copied. --
109.79.72.233 (
talk) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)reply
User Maxbmogs did not provide any edit summaries to explain his actions and has chosen not to discuss the matter either. I hope that is the end of it and that editors will not add those excessive colors to the table again. --
109.76.196.239 (
talk) 16:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Tall Tale (film)
Hi, I hope you're okay, I just wanted to tell you to take it off, because I don't think you have any relationship with Disney's remake.
189.220.43.126 (
talk) 06:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Robin Hood is already listed in the upcoming section. And it has no release date yet.
$chnauzer 03:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Rolo891 (
talk) 19:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) to remove pochahontas from the films in developement as no trusted news outlets have not reported on it nor as disney announced itreply
Done To other editors, do not readd Pocahontas until the film has actually been confirmed. The sources added do not support the addition. The first source is just fan casting, second and fourth source reference
https://wegotthiscovered.com/, which is unreliable per
WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED. The third source does not mention a Pocahontas remake.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 22:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Paragraph above the table
The introductory paragraph above the table has self-references. Can anyone edit it??
Georgia guy (
talk) 15:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)reply