Talk:Sony Pictures Animation

Monster House

Why wasn't Monster House mentioned? I fixed it, but still...

Monster House, as I recall, didn't have the Sony Pictures Animation logo at the beginning. --(trogga) 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Familiars has been cancelled

According to Sony Pictures Animation's artist, Armand Serrano, Sony has cancelled The Familiars: http://armandserrano.blogspot.com/2012/08/bridgetower.html, http://armandserrano.blogspot.com/2012/09/bridgetower-2.html.

• Both posts are labelled with The Familiars. Titles of both posts are "The Bridgetower", which is a city from the Familiars novels: http://www.thefamiliars.com/meet-the-familiars.php.
• Some other images from his gallery that are titled with "familiars" have the same content as pictures in his posts linked above: http://www.armandserrano.com/Gallery1/images/familiars1.jpg, http://www.armandserrano.com/Gallery1/images/familiars2.jpg, http://www.armandserrano.com/Gallery1/images/familiars3.jpg
• Two months ago SPA listed The Familiars as a project in development: http://sonypicturesanimation.com/newsroom.php?p=article&s=071212. In the press release from 2 weeks ago, The Familiars hasn't been included in the development slate: http://sonypicturesanimation.com/newsroom.php?p=article&s=082712.
• Armand Serrano's blog is reliable - his blog was linked from the official Sony Picures Animation's twitter account: http://twitter.com/SonyAnimation/status/205043760537665536. And SPA's twitter account is reliable as it is linked from the official SPA's home page: http://www.sonypicturesanimation.com/.
• As far as adding citations in the article. Where to? Sony has cancelled many projects in its history. More than there have been produced. Some of the cancelled projects can be seen in the Serrano's gallery and none of them has any info on this article: http://www.armandserrano.com/home/home.html. Except for Neanderthals, which has as a source for its cancellation Serrano's blog post. Recently I've removed Futuropolis based on Serrano's comment in his gallery. If we add every project that has been halted in the development process, there would be too many secondary information that has not had any substantial impact on the studio or has been particularly noted.

Are there still any objections against the removal of The Familiars from this article?--Carniolus (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

First, blogs are not reliable sources regardless of how many Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc links there are. A citation does not acquire reliability by association. Secondly, please provide a citation to a reliable source that clearly states that the film is cancelled, not citations to sources that do not mention the film. Not mentioning something is not evidence that it does not exist. And certainly a title to an image is not evidence of anything. There are sources provided in the articles that confirm the film. It is your responsibility to provide a reliable source that unequivocally confirms that it has been cancelled. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or a personal website. Cresix (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war re addition of Wage-theft cartel

I added the following paragraph:

A computer animation wage theft cartel, which started in the mid-1990s was only uncovered in 2014, and is going to trial in 2015. It involved Pixar Animation Studios, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Lucasfilm, ImageMovers Digital and Blue Sky Animation. Human resources departments heads and their recruiters met secretly each year, agreed not to hire each others animation studio's staff, and deprived employees of higher wages.(Mark Ames (2 December 2014). "New court filing shows stunning new evidence of wage-fixing by major Hollywood animation studios". Pando Daily News. Retrieved 29 January 2015.)

Koala15 removed this, with the edit summary "hardly notable, companies like this get lawsuits all the time". When I asked him not to remove sourced info and discuss this issue on this talk page to reach consensus, rather than continuing to remove, he wrote again it was "not quite notable" and refused discussion. When I reinserted, he did just that -remove again, INSISTING in the edit summary "its sourced but not quite notable".

WP:Notability is a test used to decide whether a topic warrants its own article, which is not what I am proposing here. ANd notability guidelines do not apply to article content. Info does need to be WP:verifiable, and this is. Did Koala15 mix up the 2 issues?

Info is noteworthy (maybe Koala15 meant that?), in that the prosecution of this wage theft cartel will not be your everyday lawsuit, but is a big deal when you just look at its length of existence and the sheer size, the companies involved, the many tech people affected by it. It appears to me that this user may just not have read the source. Here is a shorter article from 9-9-14 Do others think thid paragraph isnt noteworthy?? I see no regular contributor here, but Discospinster maybe?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Other than just providing breaking news, what encyclopedic purpose does this information serve, exactly? No decision has yet been made, you haven't provided any balanced counter perspective which would be expected per WP:NPOV. You've added this to numerous articles, but the chief source you cited was this one, and only now (based on my memory) are you bringing the Variety source to the table. And you're starting off the subject header with "Wage-theft cartel" as though it were a fact, when maybe "2015 class-action labor lawsuit" (or something similar) would be certainly less POV-heavy. Per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". And though I think that we might see some legs to this case, I don't know that up to this point it has been presented in such a way as to necessitate inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your suggestion of the section title, I agree with you. Cyphoidbomb, is the variety source "better" to you ?

"verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" is fine. its odd that many things get included that arent EVEN verifiable, dont you think? --Wuerzele (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Variety source would be fine, but again we need to figure out if the case is noteworthy. There are still problems with the prose—asserting that that a wage theft cartel was started in the mid-1990s and was only uncovered in 2014 could open Wikipedia up to libel claims. Has it been proven in court that there was a "cartel"? Has it been proven that it was started in the mid 90s? We're not here to make accusations, so we have to be careful about how such information is presented. That's why news organizations use the word "allegedly" so liberally. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog

Sony Animation is collaborating with SEGA to create a movie based on Sonic the Hedgehog. That hasn't been added to "films in development". (Don't believe me on this one? Here's a link to prove it:Sonic the Hedgehog Movie Coming in 2018, Mixes Live-Action and CGI|Gamespot ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoebro64 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

Sausage Party

Alfredeboogerteen (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Scorch code?

What exactly is scorch code? I searched it and it isnt thon google Jstar367 (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

On* Jstar367 (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone respond Jstar367 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Supplying a bit more info might have yielded quicker response, Jstar367. The content appears to have been added here on 21 July 2016 and here on 26 July 2016. The second instance contains a bogus link to "daedline.com" [sic]. There's no such site, and the reference doesn't resolve at "deadline.com" either. I'd guess that it's just hoax nonsense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter rabbits real release date

Hey yall peter rabbits release date needs to be changed itll be released in april 2018 and itll be voiced by james corden Jstar367 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Columbia Pictures is distributor of Sony Pictures Animation!

Has Sony Pictures ever distributed a Sony Pictures Animation film before? No. Columbia Pictures has distributed the films. And how come Columbia doesn't get all the credit? It has distributed several films before Sony bought the rights! And Sony Pictures is the parent of all their divisions. So I say, give Columbia Pictures a division: Sony Pictures Animation. Or have Columbia Pictures be the parent of Sony Pictures Animation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Meatballs

Can some help finished Draft:Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Franchise) page I need help with cast, crew and anything else anyone can think off. (P.S I use the HT franchise page as a template.82.38.157.176 (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Why should there be content for adults by SPA?

I don't see a source saying that SPA is doing content for adults? All I know is, the source on there does not say it's doing adult-only content. If it's not true, can someone remove it? 98.235.131.222 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Separate table for co-productions?

An anonymous user bought the idea of making another table for the films SPA distributes (such as the live-action hybrids and the Aardman productions), to avoid reader confusion. While I'm heistant on the idea (especially to keep the article comfortable to navigate and read), I would want other editors opinion on this proposal. Gouleg (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Angry Birds Movie

Sony Animation didn't have any involment with this film other than being distributed (by Sony Pictures Releasing) unlike the sequel which does label in its marketing as being released under the SPA label and this diff shows addition of a note which does not conform to the encyclopedic style. So it should be included in the feature films table with a different note or only the Releasing page should contain this movie? Gouleg (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Emoji Movie

Sony Pictures Animation was the main company credited for making the emoji movie, but it isn't mentioned on the page for SPA, Sony Pictures, or Columbia, despite the fact that they are all mentioned on the page for the emoji movie --Ploopy50012 (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the List of Sony Pictures Animation productions -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 15:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

List of franchises table and its contents

Should we expand the current "List of franchises" table on this article to also include TV series and shorts? Some of the films mentioned in this table have their own franchise articles (such as Open Season, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Hotel Transylvania) where more related works are explained in detail, while other films have (or currently have) a single entry (The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, excluding their short film each one has from their home media release). The main topic of this article as well is about Sony Pictures Animation, whose main activity is producing films, so I consider only those films produced by SPA to be in the list, while any other media coming from any of their films should rather be added to its franchise article.

On List of highest-grossing films, a franchise is defined as [having] two works derived from a common intellectual property. So if the other films mentioned in this list does not have a franchise article, an article about it can be established (as long it meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria) and added to the list. -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 17:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Pederjo99: as they were the one who originally expanded this table -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound

The movies that released after The Angry Birds Movie 2...

Is no one gonna mention in the article that after The Angry Birds Movie 2, the following Sony Pictures Animation films had been released to streaming and there haven't been any theatrical releases due to the COVID-19 pandemic's impact? --XSMan2016 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You may add it only if someone else has reported about the latest SPA films being released solely on streaming, otherwise this is just an observation you made that comes out as trivia. This could also be misleading as films like The Mitchells vs. the Machines and Vivo (film) did have a -limited- theatrical release -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 17:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know there were limited releases to those films. But if those limited theatrical releases weren't in America, that'd probably be moot. --XSMan2016 (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The limited theatrical release for each movie are mentioned in their respective articles. However I don't see the relevancy of this fact to the article, the COVID pandemic was an exceptional event that affected most of the film industry and distributors had to take action so their movies wouldn't become financial losses (i.e. Disney made the decision to focus more on streaming during the pandemic. [1]). Again, if someone has wrote about Sony's decision to release those films through Netflix and how the pandemic was indeed a factor, be my guest -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 16:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hercules (1997) produced by Sony Pictures Animation

Sony Pictures Animation did not produced this feature-length animated film, Hercules and Hercules was never re-released in theatres in October 2008, because Hercules was produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation and released in theatres in June 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.18.244 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Columbia TriStar Animation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Columbia TriStar Animation and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 12 § Columbia TriStar Animation until a consensus is reached. From Bassie f (his talk page) 09:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sony Pictures Animation 2002 First TV Series/TV Movie/Short Films

List of TV Series/TV Movie Buccaneer of Nemaris (2002 TV Series) The Princess of Music (2002 TV Movie) Sapphires and Sirens (2003 TV Series) Tanya Viola (2003 TV Movie) Lamplighter Series (2004 TV Series) Nagano Castle (Spin Off 2005 TV Series) TimeLine (TV Series) (2002–present) 148.252.132.52 (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)