Not sure I agree. Many years back I remember people on the internet thinking Anastasia was a Disney movie, and I believe something similar happened with The Road to El Dorado.
Maybe it isn't a phenomenon anymore, but it was at least a historical concept IMO. Maybe a Discredited Trope.
Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Nov 27th 2024 at 9:10:48 AM
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallIt's not a trope, it's an audience reaction for a reason. It's similar to Animation Age Ghetto, All Anime Is Naughty Tentacles: It's a misconception/generalization people make about a medium.
I feel like that question should have been asked on the duplicate tropes thread
, but besides the difference is that Disneyesque is about works that purposefully try to imitate classical Disney films while All Animation Is Disney is about the audience thinking a non-Disney animated movie was made by Disney just because it's animated.
![]()
I don't think AAID is as simple as "the audience thinks X about Y", though. From what I can gather from the description, it's about how Disney or another big-name company is a quote-unquote "powerhouse" in the animation world, and tends to be treated as such even when a work has anachronistic and historical context that's already self-evident from things like production codes, a Vanity Plate, etc.
The problem I see with this concept is that it relies too much on things that are "X is Y except not really", like Mis-blamednote and Mainstream Obscurity. The description rambles a lot about why this is a thing that exists and some stuff about historical context, but only barely explains how it applies in the first place. It stands out more to me since the All X Are Y naming scheme feels totally at odds with said description, which also partially implies that it's about frequency rather than perception, something backed up by the examples varying from "Some obscure review said X is Y" to "The advertisements heavily implied X is Y but didn't state it outright."
Even ignoring those problems, the specific "All Animation Is Disney" name itself just seems...disorganized? "Disney" is a generalization since the concept can apply to any major animation studio—is that supposed to be a meta-joke?
Edited by Coachpill on Nov 27th 2024 at 10:52:57 AM
Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱Bump—is anyone else having confusion regarding the definition, or is it just me? The definition doesn't seem to have really changed over time (if at all) going by both the YKTTW and an archive from several months later
Perhaps All Animation Is Disney can be renamed if it's causing confusion. After all, a similarly named trope, All Adult Animation Is "South Park", has been renamed Animated Shock Comedy, as the latter is much clearer.
Kirby is awesome.
Not so much causing confusion, as the article itself is confused by what it's about.
If there is a trope here, it would be "Disney Derivative", films that copy the Disney style. Anastasia and Swan Lake would be clear examples. But beyond that? How close would it have to adhere to be an example? And given that it would be accusing these films of a lack of creativity, I could see such an article becoming a magnet for complaining and natter.
It might be better to make it into an exampleless article on the influence Disney has had on animation.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
Wouldn't that be a Fountain of Expies subtrope? I know we're trying to crack down on those.
Although I'd support a version of this particular one regardless if so. Unlike stuff like Slender Man Stand In, there are demonstrable cases of Disney-like properties such as the ones you mentioned, especially in The '90s when the Disney Renaissance (and the animation renaissance more broadly) were at their peak and numerous companies tried to cash in.
The reason I say a version, however, is because Disney itself has been through multiple periods in their history, and 90s Renaissance-era Disney is quite different from 2010s-onward Disney, in tone, style, content, etc. I'd argue modern Disney is a lot more like Pixar than 90s Disney. As such, "Disney Derivative" could include both the 90s fairy-tale knockoff movies like Quest for Camelot or more modern movies that are going for a modern Disney-like style, the latter of which is a nebulous possible definition that could be used to shoehorn lots of non-fitting movies in.
Thus, I'd argue "Disney Derivative" could itself be further retooled into a more specific trope about 90s fairy-tale Disney ripoffs. Thoughts?
Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Dec 3rd 2024 at 8:48:19 AM
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallWe already have Disneyesque for that kind of thing. Which has been mentioned multiple times in this thread.
Edited by FSharp on Dec 3rd 2024 at 12:09:42 PM
I don't just Wiki Talk the talk. I Wiki Walk the walk.The "All X is Y" snowclone tropes were probably not the best thing to get into a habit with. It's intentionally facetious but way too easy to take at face value, resulting in "Aversion" based examples. A better name may be something like "Animation Is Disney Until Proven Otherwise" that might get the point across that something vaguely Disney is assumed to be Disney.
Comics are just words and pictures. You can do anything with words and pictures.![]()
Forgot about Disneyesque — that indeed covers it.
What confuses me about this trope is: who is this directed to? Is it about a work being treated as a Disney property just because it's animated? Is it about a character in-universe who thinks that all animation is Disney's?
I'm willing to disambiguate this trope. Into:
- Disneyesque, for works that actively mimick the classic Disney style(s) and formulas;
- Small Reference Pools, for the average person that doesn't know about other animation studios than Disney;
- What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?, for people expecting any animated work to be kid-friendly, following Disney's example.
Eh what the hell, I'm going to go ahead and run a quick wick check. A lot of wicks seem to be potholes and there are only 167 wicks (many of which are unclassifiable) so I don't think it'll be too difficult, but I'm interested to see the (in)consistency of the examples.
Update: Actually, I'll finish this a bit later. So far 17/50 examples are correct; not as bad as I was expecting but still a big problem. Examples are a bit all over the place as well
Edited by Coachpill on Dec 4th 2024 at 2:37:46 PM
Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱~Coachpill I noticed you completed the wick check. There seems to be a lot of misuse/bad examples from a cursory glance — do you think it's enough for TRS, or no?
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallI'm actually planning to check all of the wicks, lol. I'll finish tomorrow or Friday, though feel free to help out if you want; I need to reorganize some stuff anyway since I think I miscounted
Your goateed philistine is sashaying towards us. | 🧱

This is a page that's been on the wiki for a long time, but I'm not entirely sure I understand the point of it. "People mistaking non-Disney animated works for those of Disney" isn't really a trope, and nowadays it's pretty common knowledge that many animated movies aren't made by Disney. We have another trope page, Disneyesque, for works that deliberately imitate the art style of Disney's hand-drawn animated movies, so what's the difference between that and All Animation Is Disney?