The trivia question is: name three disney movies with talking animals. I would reject finding nemo because Up was the first film released after the purchase. However, technically disney now owns all of pixars past films as well.
Is finding nemo a disney movie now?
While Disney only recently out-right bought Pixar, they’ve been associated with all of their movies from the beginning, including Finding Nemo. Pretty sure the Disney logo showed up in front of it. It was on the movie posters, at least. I’d say that’s sufficient for a correct answer by pub trivia standards.
I’d say yes, sortof, because I looked up Finding Nemo on Amazon, and the very first thing on it is “Walt Disney Pictures Presents…” (I think, it’s blurry, but definitely Disney). Disney’s getting the DVD sale money.
If this is for actual trivia, I’d clarify things in the question or people would complain. Either go: Disney or Pixar okay OR Disney-made OR Disney but not Pixar, pre or post ownership change.
Maybe as distributor? Red cliff, the grandmaster, etc would not be the american distributors films.
But didnt turner buy all universal films or something? No one would say now they are turner films.
Didnt michael jackson buy the rights to all the beatles songs?
The Aristocats, Jungle Book, and 101 Dalmatians.
What do I win?
The Wikipedia entry on Pixar has some useful information. It’s a long entry, but the important part is here:
I’ve bolded what I think is the most important part. As the rest of the article explains, Disney had the rights to every Pixar movie up through Cars when the relationship between the two companies started to break down. The only Pixar movie ever made that was not created with the understanding that it would ultimately be the property of Disney was Ratatouille, which was started while the negotiations to purchase Pixar were in progress, and not guaranteed to succeed.
So, given that Disney has always been the sole owner of the Pixar properties, and that they actively bankrolled the movies, I’d say that the answer is “Yes,” Pixar movies can reasonably be considered Disney movies, even before Disney bought them out completely.
I voted “other”, but I’d say that only the Pixar shorts made in the 1980s – Luxo Jr., Knick Knack, et al. – aren’t Disney. Everything else would count for reasons **Miller **explained.
If I were asked that question, I would ask for clarification, as I think it’s reasonable to include Pixar movies, but also reasonable not to include Pixar movies.
No. Before Up, Pixar produced the movies and Disney distributed them.
If films like Up or A Bug’s Life are Disney, then Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs isn’t a Disney film, since RKO released it.
As far as I can determine, every ‘Pixar Movie’ has listed the Production Company as either “Pixar Animation Studios, Walt Disney Pictures” or “Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios”, and has been distributed by Buena Vista Pictures/Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (name changed in 2007).
To me, that means that they have always been ‘Disney Movies’.
At the Electronic Theater presentation I attended at the first SIGGRAPH convention after the Disney deal happened, people cheered the PIXAR logo, and booed the Disney one.
Same as when they bought Lucas, people freaked out. Slowly people realized that this means that the new Star Wars films are unlikely to get worse, and anyway Disney has a good track record with film reviews.
…but still, screw them for killing LucasArts. 
And paid for half the budget. And retained story and character rights.
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Snow White can legitimately be called both a Disney picture and an RKO picture.
Specifically in the case of SIGGRAPH, it was an audience of people who would love to work for PIXAR, and who would hate to work for the Mouse. Stories of terrible working conditions at the studio’s “Duckau” and “Mousewitz” facilities are legends in the computer graphics community.
How are you defining whose film it is? By who had creative control, or who had/has legal control? I’d say Pixar for the first and Disney for the second. Both answers are useful in certain contexts, and not so useful in another.
Name someone who calls it an RKO picture. You have to be a film historian to know that RKO was involved (or what RKO was).
Disney did provide money to Pixar, and retained the rights, but that was a common practice for many small independent studios. Disney did the same thing for Miramax; no one calls Chasing Amy, Mimic, Life is Beautiful, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Frida, Ella Enchanted or Gangs of New York Disney Films.
At the time, Miramax was owned by Disney. So calling them “Disney Films” wouldn’t be incorrect, but calling them “Miramax Films” would be more correct.
However, in the case of Pixar, they were funded and distributed by Disney. So calling them “Disney Films” is correct. Disney’s later buyout of Pixar just makes a slightly murky situation more clear.
So? The question is, “How accurate is this description,” not “How common is this description?”
Are we going for a letter-of-the-law or spirit-of-the-law answer?
If it’s spirit of the law, I’d not count any Pixar answers, since Pixar is the dominant brand there, not Disney.
If it’s letter of the law, I’d count Cinderella, Snow White, and Fantasia, since humans are animals.
