Jump to content

Talk:List of Disney Channel original films

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cqntralls (talk | contribs) at 03:40, 21 May 2022 (→Zombies 3: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suite Life On Deck Movie Rankings

According to the Suite Life Movie page, the movie received 14 million views. That means the movie is ranked second and beat out Wizards of Waverly Place. SOMEONE FIX THE PAGE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.24.174 (talk) 19:49, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

First DCOM: We've got a problem...

Folks, we have a problem here. The following two sources, which I've been using since June 2016 very clearly say that Under Wraps (film) is considered to be the first DCOM: [1][2] However, Spshu has just produced as Washington Post reference[3] that claims Northern Lights (1997 film) is the first DCOM. So now we have a conflict between sources. (FTR, I feel more comfortable with my sources from June 2016, as I believe not counting Northern Lights gets Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film) to be the 100th DCOM. Also Under Wraps was included in the Summer 2016 retrospective of DCOMs, whereas I don't believe Northern Lights was...) Anyway, what do we do now? Pinging @Geraldo Perez, Amaury, and MPFitz1968: --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation on the IMDB indicates that it was "disowned" as DCOM because a main character was a heavy smoker. Or there was a period where neither Disney Channel Premiere Films nor Disney Channel Original Movies brand was used possible Premears (indicate usourced in the article) or none. Although it was to have used the new banner that was chosen latter (DCOM). Thus making it easy to disown it as a DCOM. Spshu (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible. But I'm more concerned that we've got conflicting sources on this. The thing is, we've got 2 sources claiming that Under Wraps (film) is the first DCOM versus just 1 source saying that Northern Lights (1997 film) was the first. And it's verifiably provable that Under Wraps was indeed a DCOM – it's right there on the poster art that's shown at the article. OTOH, the poster art at Northern Lights does not include the phrase "Disney Channel Original Movie" – that's pretty good evidence to me that Northern Lights wasn't actually "branded" as a DCOM (at least not "officially"). Finally, I would point out that Disney is the one that gets to say what is a "DCOM" and what isn't, and one of the two sources I've cited above specifically says "Disney Channel considers 1997’s Under Wraps as its first official DCOM..." That all says to me that Northern Lights should be moved out of the DCOM list and back into the list above it. The only question in my mind is whether we should then put a 'note' on Northern Lights indicating that some sources (e.g. The Washington Post) describe Northern Lights as the "first DCOM" – and, on that question, I am inclined to think that a 'note' containing the WaPo source is warranted. Any other opinions on this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have two sources saying Under Wraps was the first DCOM, I'm thinking we should go by that. Northern Lights, as you said, isn't labeled as a DCOM, so I'm thinking it was just a movie that happened to be aired on Disney Channel. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think Northern Ligths was a "proto" DCOM (probably when Disney was just starting to define the brand). But I do think that Under Wraps is the first "official" DCOM, as per Disney's own comments. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When we have two reliable sources with conflicting info we should be sure to cover both in the article. Seems to me that DCOM can mean either a brand or a description "A movie that first aired on DC or one of its predecessors" vs a movie that we (Disney Channel) have decided to slap the brand DCOM on. The sources look to be using different definitions. Reading the note, the reference is using the descriptive version, not the branding version to declare membership in the group. I'd go with what Disney decides is their brand if that is what is decided to go in the table but be sure to cover the conflict in references in the article somewhere. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's my plan – move Northern Lights back into the first list, but add a note (with source) indicating that some sources refer to it as the first "DCOM". But all the evidence presented here, and at Northern Lights (1997 film) and Under Wraps (film), pretty conclusively shows that Under Wraps is the first "official" DCOM, as per Disney Channel. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to agree, but on MTV's list of 99 DCOMs (for polling readers), Northern Lights is listed there at #99.[4] Spshu (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggested way to handle this is still the best way forward – we're going to note that some sources consider Northern Lights to be a DCOM. But the EW ref definitively says that Disney Channel considers Under Wraps to be the first DCOM. Disney Channel is ultimately the one who gets to define what films are DCOM's and what aren't. (As for the MTV ref, they must be missing one – I'll try to figure out which one they're missing later...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the table documents the brand, then Disney gets to define what movies get to have that brand. What they say is authoritative. That others consider things different than Disney is interesting and should be in the article but where depends on the inclusion criteria for the tables. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't take orders from Disney, we base it on actual facts - not that we completely disregard their future application of the brand name. If Northern Lights was originally branded as a DisCh Original Movie and later disowned/debranded as one then it should be listed as a DCOM with the notation that Disney no longer brands/considers the film as such. If Northern was just a made for Disney Channel movie, or a Proto-DCOM, then yes we list it with the Pre-DCOM with the notation that some sources consider it the first DCOM. (It looks like Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure is not on the MTV poll - possibly being a DTV release first.) Spshu (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disney would be one of the sources we follow, and because they actually determine "branding" they're actually most important source we follow. And your two sources don't actually say "Northern Lights was originally 'branded' as a DCOM" – the MTV simply includes it in the list of the other DCOMs; only WaPo calls in the "first" DCOM, but even they don't say exactly that. What would be more definitive would be source from 1997 that actually called Northern Lights a "Disney Channel Original Movie" (in title caps). But I keep coming back to the poster art – Northern Lights' poster does not say "Disney Channel Original Movie" while Under Wraps' does – that to me is the most definitive proof that the EW source is correct, and Under Wraps is the first "official" DCOM. So this list needs to reflect that. (IMO, it also can't be ignored that Adventures in Babysitting isn't the "100th DCOM" if you count Northern Lights...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

←IJBall, you just restated what I say. My last post was in response to Perez's post that current Disney Channels management use of the brand could absolute negate previous brand use. Although, the EW article use the term "considers" in regards to Under Wraps DCOM status, that isn't absolute, giving the possibility of other earlier movies were DCOM but lost that brand or fuzzy in general. We also have to consider common understanding at WP, for example in naming articles. MTV News takes this up directly, even reporting regarding Northern's listing at this article, and the Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure DTV DCOM substitution.[5] Vanity Fair places Northern as the first DCOM (lower case).[6] Bustle (not aware of this site before) has it as coming out officially under the DCOM banner.[7]

@Spshu: The MTV source you just added (which I think we should probably still use in any case) is disingenuous at best – it's not "some fans" that consider Under Wraps to be the "first DCOM" – it's Disney Channel itself! (I also notice that the 1997 "Boca Raton News" article that is quoted in the MTV story doesn't label the film as a "Disney Channel Original Movie" either.) It's also dangerously close to WP:CIRCULAR relying as it does on this very Wikipedia article... But, again, that source can be added as well to the note I'm going add for Northern Lights. But there is still nothing I've seen that indicates that Northern Lights was actually "branded" as a DCOM (by Disney, in 1997 – Bustle provides no evidence for this, and I wonder how many of these articles were relying on older versions of this article for calling NL a "DCOM"...). In any case, I intend to move it back, with the new note added, in the next few days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, if we can find a contemporary 1997 source calling Northern Lights a "Disney Channel Original Movie" (title case necessary?), that would probably justify leaving it in the DCOMs list (though still with a note of explanation required). Otherwise, I think it should be moved back (with an added note), based on what Disney is saying in 2016 (and the current lack of verification that Northern Lights actually was a branded "DCOM"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This[8] uses the words "...Disney Channel's original movie "Northern Lights"..." but not in the sense of a "brand" title; the following LA Times review of the film[9] doesn't use those words at all. Neither does the NY Times review of the film,[10] nor the Entertainment Weekly review.[11] I am still finding no contemporary sourcing that verifies that this was a "Disney Channel Original Movie" in the sense that it was branded as such... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One point about Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure: Disney didn't just suddenly decide in 2016 that it was a "DCOM" – Disney was calling Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure a "DCOM" from Day #1! It's right there in the May 2011 press release for the film.[12] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little late, but this commercial does call Northern Lights "a Disney Channel original movie", and this 2014 interview with actor and writer John Hoffman describes it as "the first Disney Channel Original Movie". Raymond1922 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several points here. First Disney itself is the one that gets to "decide" what "the first Disney Channel Original Movie" (actors/writers don't) and Disney has clearly settled on Under Wraps as being the "first" DCOM. Second, we include a 'note' that covers all this, so it hasn't been ignored. Third, while the ad does say "Disney Channel original movie" in the voice-over, they don't include on-screen "branding" to that effect in the ad (i.e. the words "Disney Channel Original Movie" never appear on screen). Ultimately, I think that's what puts Under Wraps over the top at the first DCOM – the poster art actually includes the words "Disney Channel Original Movie", whereas Northern Lights' does not. It's pretty clear from all of this that Northern Lights is basically the "proto"- or "prototypical"-DCOM – Disney was obviously moving in the direction of creating the "DCOM" label around this time, but didn't "formally" adopt it until Under Wraps. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Patrick Hipes (April 20, 2016). "Disney Channel Original Movie 'The Swap' Set As Network Plans 100-Pic Celebration". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved 2016-06-27. The news comes as Disney Channel today unveiled plans for the 100th DCOM Celebration, a summer programming marathon centered on the airing of the network's 100th original move since 1997 — the first movie was Under Wraps, and the 100th will be a reimagining of the 1987 film Adventures In Babysitting which doesn't have an airdate yet.
  2. ^ Marc Snetiker (June 22, 2016). "Disney Channel Original Movies: 12 little-known stories". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2016-06-26. Disney Channel considers 1997's Under Wraps as its first official DCOM...
  3. ^ Moore, Caitlin (May 27, 2016). "Disney Channel made the same 'original' movie 100 times. That's why we love them". Washington Post. Retrieved March 14, 2017.
  4. ^ Grant, Stacey (March 7, 2016). "What Is The Best Disney Channel Original Movie Of All Time? Vote Now". MTV News. MTV. Retrieved 15 March 2017.
  5. ^ Grant, Stacey (June 15, 2016). "Why Is The Disney Channel Original Movie Marathon Missing One Major Film?". MTV News. Retrieved March 16, 2017. The 1997 film Northern Lights, which is widely considered to be the first Disney Channel Original Movie, is not on the list. Some fans, however, peg the DCOM Under Wraps, about a mummy brought back to life, as the first-ever DCOM. Either way, Under Wraps is certainly more well-known than Northern Lights, which starred Diane Keaton.
  6. ^ Bradley, Laura (April 20, 2016). "Binge-Watch Your Childhood as the Disney Channel Marathons All of Its Original Movies". Vanity Fair. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
  7. ^ Bowman, Sabienna (May 9, 2016). "11 Disney Channel Original Movies You Totally Forgot About". Bustle. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
  8. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/17/news/tv-23114
  9. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/23/entertainment/ca-25017
  10. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/22/arts/a-boy-alone-and-2-adults-with-a-lot-to-learn.html
  11. ^ http://ew.com/article/1997/08/22/diane-keatons-northern-lights/
  12. ^ ""Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure," A Disney Channel Original Movie, Premieres Sunday May 22 on Disney Channel" (Press release). Disney Channel. May 6, 2011. Retrieved March 16, 2017 – via TV by the Numbers.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Disney Channel original films. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Disney Channel original films. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants 2 ratings

We need to make a call here – I think we should only include the Disney Channel (only) ratings in the table, rather than the total ratings for all 6 networks. (We can include the total ratings for all 6 networks in a separate note in the ratings table.) Including only Disney Channel ratings allows "apples-to-apples" ratings comparisons with all of the other entries in the table – otherwise, the Descendants 2 ratings won't be comparable to the other entries. Thoughts?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should include all channels because that was the rating of the movie. In a separate note we can say how many people watched the disney channel braoudcast. --ANDREWs13 (contribs • talk)
I already explained that we will include the total figure, but in a note. It makes no sense to include the "total" ratings for Descendants 2 when every other entry in the table is just Disney Channel-only ratings. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the other movies were only on Disney Channel. User:ANDREWs13 —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The title of this article is "List of Disney Channel original films". Emphasis mine. Doesn't matter that this was simulcast. We are still only documenting Disney Channel's ratings which haven't been posted yet. Also, we don't know what the other networks received; as such, the 13 million is probably not entirely accurate and is likely just a rough figure. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will it still be in the top 10 list? -- ANDREWs13 —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what the Disney Channel-only ratings turn out to be. It's certainly possible that it will be. But it shouldn't be listed #1 or #2 in the table on a technicality. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no, based on this, it looks like it won't be in Top 10 of DCOMs on the Disney Channel – a sentence in prose, below the table, can be used to report the (final) "simulcast" ratings figure though. It is, however, almost certain to be the top DCOM for the year 2017, so it will be in the table at the bottom of the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Disney Channel original films. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

The Lizzie McGuire Movie is missing in the 2003 Category Of List Of Disney Channel Original Films Article. The movie was premiered on May 2, 2003. Fruitsbasket123456 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

information Info This is because The Lizzie McGuire Movie was theatrically released – it was not a DCOM (i.e. it was not a "TV movie" originally aired on Disney Channel). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I have fully protected this page for two days. I see lots of reverting but I don't see any attempt by either side to come to the talk page and explain why they are adding/reverting. Lay out your reasoning here, please. Several of you, who have been here long enough to know better, are way over WP:3RR. Remember that edit warring is against the rules even when you think you are right. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the part where I went to the editor's talk page, and requested they explain their changes here. Which they have refused to do. As per WP:BURDEN, the rest of us don't have to explain the added content – the "adder" does. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted content that was added that was not in WP:SCOPE of the article as specified by the article title and lead description of what the scope of the article is. Generally we try to restrict article content of all articles to the defined article scope. If the editor adding the out-of-scope content wants to extent the scope there needs to be a discussion and consensus to do so and likely the article title would need to change to reflect change. I would oppose changing the scope of this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Movies not on list

was stargirl a disney channel original? Mattchew2112 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like Mr. Sunny

This movie does not exist, it's an internet hoax, and sadly origin of it is Wikipedia, this IP edit specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Disney_Channel_original_films&diff=prev&oldid=297730358 Every other spread to the internet happened after that edit. As such I'm removing it from page.Tehonk (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Disney Channel Premiere Films' are tough, because that was back then Disney Channel was basically a "Pay TV" channel like HBO, so sourcing is extremely difficult to come by (i.e. no easy way to do WP:V on them!). Thus, it would not surprise me if that was not the only hoax listed, or if some of the listed airing dates weren't flat-out wrong for some of them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Magazines are invaluable resources, they contain full schedules from these era. Some can be found on archive.org: https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22Disney%20Channel%20Magazine%22 There are quite a lot of from these era, although not so much from 1983. One of the uploaders said intents to upload more from 1983. And Bill Cotter's "The Wonderful World of Disney Television" book is also a masterpiece work: https://www.amazon.com/Wonderful-World-Disney-Television-Complete/dp/0786863595 And his supplemental materials that he sells separately here: https://www.billcotter.com/tvbook/supplemental.htm They basically combine everything even from these unfindable Disney Channel Magazine issues.Tehonk (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel Premiere Films

IP editor is trying to trim this list down using [1], but fan clubs/fan sites are not considered reliable sources. If there are incorrect entries in that list, we will need a reliable source in order to verify that – something like the Disney Channel Magazines that are mentioned in the thread above this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D23 is a labeled as a fan club but it is owned and run by Disney. A bit different than fan sites owned and run by fans with no connection to the company. I would consider this an exception to the general rule of not using fan sites. Disney calls it a fan club but it is a Disney product run by Disney for the benefit of Disney fans. Content included is likely as reliable as any other content generated by Disney official outlets. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will self-revert on that basis, but I personally would rather see some other sourcing to confirm this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Geraldo Perez D23 should be considered reliable. And AFAIK these pages under the "Disney A to Z" section is prepared by Disney's Chief Archivist. So should be as reliable as it gets.Tehonk (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Companions

It's currently listed with "February 28, 1987" date, while this is indeed the US premiere date, it was actually aired in Canada years before than that. In "December 4, 1983" [2]. How to note this in the page?Tehonk (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tehonk: I would leave the U.S. air date there, but you can add a 'note' via the {{Refn}} template, which allows you to add a note with an inline source included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.U.N.K.S. = DCOM

Because Disney says so - https://d23.com/a-to-z/p-u-n-k-s-television/

User:IJBall says this needs to be discussed, apparently they think facts need discussion. So, please discuss.

98.109.143.57 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it "fact checked" by a trusted editor – @Tehonk: do you have any comments or thoughts on this? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ping @IJBall:, hard to tell, kind of similar to Northern Lights, from what I can tell it was first released on video in January (and that 5 January date seems to be wrong, every contemporary source and video guide lists it with 12 January date) so, initially it had nothing to do with Disney. Disney later purchases rights to air it in fall, on September 4, 1999 (the date d23.com lists). Trying to find out if it was labeled as DCOM at that time. But question is, even if it was labeled as such in September premiere, it was first made for video and had nothing to do with Disney after all, should it be called a DCOM then? Tehonk (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My general thought is – if it was not included in Disney's "official list" of "100 DCOMs" from 2016, then it's not a DCOM. IMDb also lists no involvement from Disney or a Disney company, and does not list it as a "TV movie". At best, it might belong under 'Notable non-Disney Channel Original Movie films' along with 16 Wishes and Harriet The Spy: Blog Wars (which also have pages at D23), but I'd want to see at least one other source on this to confirm it. But I agree with you, this is not a DCOM – it looks like D23 got this wrong (which has been my concern with this fansite the whole time: I was wondering if there were errrors...). So my vote is that it stays out of the main list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies 3

So, Zombies 3 is now set to be a Disney+ Original Movie coming Friday, July 15.[1]

However, it's also airing on Disney Channel on Friday, August 12. This is the first time this has happened where a movie streams on Disney+ FIRST and on Disney Channel later, it's usually the other way around.

My question is, do we leave Zombies 3 on the List of Disney Channel original films page or just move it to the List of Disney+ original films page?

Peacerocker07 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It will come down to what WP:RS call the film from here on in – If they keep calling it a "Disney Channel Original Film", it stays here. But if they start calling it a "Disney+ Original Film", then it should be removed from this list. Based on the EW article, it's looking like it should be pulled from this list. But lets see what other RS say after this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could see the poster as not being clear enough but it does call it an Original movie in the same manner it does on Chip n Dale and Turning Red's posters CreecregofLife (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?
If the encore presentation or even the streaming release says "A Disney Channel Original Movie" at the beginning, maybe it could stay on the List of Disney Channel original films? That's the only other way I could think of it staying. Peacerocker07 (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Joey Nolfi (May 20, 2022). "RuPaul joins Disney's Zombie 3 movie as the mother of all alien spaceships". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2022-05-20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Disney_Channel_original_films&oldid=1088971860"