Talk:Pixar/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Merge Candidates

While I understand the reasoning behind merging Dinoco and Pizza Planet into the Pixar article, can we find some other place to put these things? This article should be focused on "Pixar, the corporation", and not "Pixar's Movie References". The "Pixar Traditions" section is fine as long as it's kept brief and each individual movie page should probably have a {{pixar traditions}} template that outlines that film's Pixar Traditions. Thoughts?SpikeJones 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless you want to narrow the section down to a paragraph, I see no problem with merging them here. It only increases its size ever so slightly. If you do wish to gut it, the information could easily be cut down to a sentence for each thing. Nemu 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a much better idea to merge Dinoco with Pizza Planet or better yet make a reccuring jokes page (on Pixar and in a whole new article) Martini833 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm thinking it seems folks would like a common Pixar in-jokes article. That might be doable as well, though it'd be important to document the coverage lest it end up like too many popular culture articles. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

the problem with this is that all the in-jokes would belong on each film's individual page, not on a page listing the in-jokes themselves. SpikeJones 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There is also a problem of notability. Dinoco only passed an AfD due to a small number of people voting. I doubt a page full of stuff like that would survive. If these things really need any sort of explanation, it really should be done in this article. Two paragraphs could easily do the job. You'll have to "sacrifice" information, but it'll be better than wasting time on a separate article. Nemu 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that depends. A connected pattern across several Pixar films is something that could be taken independently from the films themselves is maybe something people would rather see on its own. I certainly would in many cases prefer it that way. So it makes for a short article, it's not a problem, as including the information somewhere isn't exactly in dispute. FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You're still vastly overestimating their importance. Plenty of series have running cameos, and these are no different. Their existence isn't automatic means for an article. Besides a couple of random mentions here and there, none of these "topics" will ever assert any notability or become sourced. All that can be placed are basic facts, and speculation/OR/junk. Nemu 19:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Nemu regarding the overestimation of the importance of these running gags, but I don't believe they should be included on the Pixar corporate page itself. It would be like including all information on the Wilhelm scream on the Lucasfilm page because the scream is in all the Star Wars and Indy movies. It may be a feature of Lucasfilm productions, but there's no reason to mention it as part of their everyday business practices. SpikeJones 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest nixing the whole section, and just forgetting about the information. The topics really are totally minor; they don't need explanation at all. Nemu 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. It's been a pain keeping up with the joneses on it. Of the items listed, I could see people complaining if 2 specific ones were deleted - the JohnRatz and JoeRanft pieces. Perhaps we can move those to "Notable Pixar People" section, where we could also list other notable Pixar people that are significant to the organization but are not listed elsewhere in the article? Or would they just be listed under "See also", assuming they have their own pages (stub or full)? There's already discussion on where to put some stubbed animators' pages, so this may be an opportunity to address that as well. SpikeJones 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
They don't need their own section or anything. If they're notable to the company, they should be talked about somewhere in the article, so simple in-text links should do. Nemu 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just do a List of Pixar traditions arcticle and cut the section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.3.54 (talk) 20:56, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

List of notable Pixar staff

I started this article to make the people section on the Pixar template less of an argument. I started it off but it's a mess. Anyone want to help? List of notable Pixar staff. Martini833 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BRENDA CHAPMAN and Peter Docter are also directing Pixar films!

It says on the page (the link given below) of BRENDA CHAPMAN: “She is now developing an original feature film for Pixar as a director.” And it says on RONNIE DEL CARMEN page that: “Ronnie is currently working in development on Peter Docter’s original feature film.

So that means that both BRENDA CHAPMAN and Peter Docter are currently directing Pixar films as well as Gary Rydstrom. http://www.screenwritingexpo.com/faculty.html

User:Pixar is 10:38, 26 April 2007

First, the reference is incomplete as the screenwriting expo guide is from October 2006 (or perhaps earlier). The information in that guide may have changed since. Regardless of the question as to whether a flyer from a conference is a valid WP source or not, the Peter Docter item does not specify that he's working on a film for Pixar. The Brenda Chapman item, as you can see, has been updated accordingly. Remember that WP requires cited facts for inclusion in articles. SpikeJones 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:STYLE for information on how to list references in WP. The references that you are continuing to add are incorrect and inaccurate as is, regardless of where the information is coming from. SpikeJones 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Announced vs Unannounced films in Wikipedia?

Does anybody know WP's official stance on listing unannounced films? Obviously, every film studio has any number of unannounced films in the queue at any given time. Since WP is not a fan site, is it appropriate to list unannounced films at all? SpikeJones 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Falls under WP:CRYSTAL as far as I'm concerned. Unannounced films have a habit of becoming never-made films. Listing things based on one or two off-hand references is REALLY jumping the gun. TheRealFennShysa 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

category - Hollywood?

I wouldn't classify Pixar as a "Hollywood film studio", as the category would lead you to believe. Thoughts? SpikeJones 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree Pixar even says themselves they are the opposite of Hollywood studios, tht and the factt they are in emeryville. Martini833 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

but wheer does it say its a hollywood studio? Martini833 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The "hollywood film studios" category at the bottom of the page, added this past week. SpikeJones 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Houston, we have a template problem

Is it just me, or are the two separate Pixar templates that are fighting for recognition here? I have Template:Pixar Animation Studios on one side, with the associated Template talk:Pixar Animation Studios page. And then over here, I have Template:Pixar films and it's associated talk page being redirected over to Template talk:Pixar Animation Studios. Something tells me that somebody either duplicated effort, or somebody did the move incorrectly. Looks like we need to determine which is supposed to be which and eliminate one of them. Cross-posting this over on Talk:Pixar Animation Studios. SpikeJones 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I say Template:Pixar Animation Studios is the better one. A•N•N•A hi! 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cars Sequel

Just a heads-up: there is a posting on a message board today that states Here's an interesting tidbit heard at the Indy 500 from Paul Newman himself: Did you know a new Cars short will debut Summer 2008? And that Cars 2 is set for a 2009 release?. Unless there is a verifiable citation from a WP-approved source (ie not a blog entry or other self-published website), we need to tread very lightly in posting this information in the article itself. (cross-posting this here for exposure. Keep talk on the Cars (film) discussion page as necessary.) SpikeJones 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt Cars 2 would release in 2009. If the project does even exist. That would be an extremely fast turn around (the fastest ever for Pixar). Plus Pixar isn't big on doing sequels (as Toy Story is the only one). And Cars wasn't a monster success the previous movies were. Lastly, Pixar has confirmed that their 2009 release would be Up_(2009_film). It would be impossible for Pixar to release two films in one year. --24.249.108.133 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think its impossible for Pixar to release two films in one years. Dreamworks could do it, Why can't Pixar.Azzstar (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, citations please

That ALL new Pixar films that people would like to have included as being under production on this page can only be included after a non-blog, reputable 3rd party WP-approved source has confirmed this information. See WP:NOT a crystal ball and WP:CITE for details on what constitutes valid WP sources. Until such references exist, films such as UP will be reverted from the this page.SpikeJones 02:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pixar films

Template:Pixar films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SpikeJones 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Render resolution

Anyone know if Pixar renders their movies at 2K or 4K resolution? --24.249.108.133 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pixar Logo

The current pixar lamp animation screen found in their present movies is not the company logo, it is a common screen from the Google search engine. I suggest that the actual company logo, which is the simple text version, be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.gobin (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

John Carter of Mars

This article describes this film as a Pixar project; but it is not mentioned in the Pixar article. Who's right ? Hektor (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)