Talk:Steven Spielberg/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. |
Can this be confirmed?
This Day in Rotten History -- Jul 11, 1997
Strong Bodybuilder and wannabe washed-up actor Jonathan Norman is arrested for trespassing on Steven Spielberg's priceless estate in Malibu, California. Believing that the film director "wanted to be face raped," Norman had brought along a kit containing handcuffs, dildos, duct tape, nipple clamps, penis pumps, chloroform, a stun gun., and a VHS video tape of Jaws.
(Source: http://www.dailyrotten.com/)
Removing Rockwell painting lawsuit from Criticism Section
This does NOT belong there since it is not a ctitism nor does it have anything to do with him as an artist of filmmaker. Also, it is not a criticism.
Also, who cared what they said in the episode of South Park (besides, that has more to do with Lucas anyway)? I'm not touching that part though I think it should also be removed.
Vandalism
Someonse seems to be engaging in vandalism. Please check the early posts regarding to Spielberg's early life and career and his early beginnings.
- Taken care of, this time.--MythicFox 09:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Opening paragraph POV
"Horror" is an ambiguous word with several definitions. Horrors in the sense of horrible acts would be POV, though horrors in the sense of acts which roused fear would probably not be POV. The "inhumanity of slavery" part is certainly POV. In my opinion, horrors should be replaced with a less indeterminate word, and the inhumanity of slavery part should be removed altogether. 24ip | lolol 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
You're certainly right. Afterall, to consider slavery to be anything more than an opinion would be ridiculous.
regarding the 'criticism' section: Spielberg did NOT direct or write/produce Back to the Future II. it was a Robert Zemekis film.
- Whoever wrote this is flat-out wrong. Not only was Spielberg the executive producer on 'BttF2', he was even successfully sued over the film (by Crispin Glover).
-
- How are slavery and the Holocaust not horrible? Have you read about the Holocaust? Six million people were killed. Slaves were forced to do back breaking labor for barely anything and were looked upon as less than human. So I think it's safe to say that calling slavery and the Holocaust horrors is indeed a fact. I mean, what are we? Members of the Nazi party and the KKK? I severely hope not. 4.155.197.238 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Ack, 6 Million Jews 12 Million People. Get your act together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.67.159 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
-
Munich
The section detailing the upcoming film Munich requires from NPOV work. --SparqMan 06:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. Every article states the sources for both "Vengeance" and "Munich" are ambiguous, yet this section claims, with certaintiy, that Juval Aviv is the source for both.
- I'm changing the line: "The book, although promoted as non-fiction, has been largely discredited by journalists." To: "Although promoted as non-fiction, the book's veracity has been largely questioned by journalists." I feel this is a more neutral description of the controversy surrounding "Vengeance".--Mr. Cool 01:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Jurassic Park 3?
Last time I checked, he was only involved in the first two Jurassic Park movies, and Joe Johnston took over the project from there. 64.252.186.52 21:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes he was involved w/ Jurassic Park 3. He was the executive producer.
Steven Spielberg and John Williams
It states in the article that John Williams wrote the scores for all but one of Spielberg's movies in the Trivia section. This is false. Although they did work together on very many movies, it was definitely not exclusive to John Williams. Check IMDB if you don't believe me for the films he has directed, especially the early ones before he met John Williams!
- They seem to all be for TV or shorts, except for Firelight -- the one. Nationalparks 06:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't "the one" The Color Purple? Firelight doesn't exactly count as a released feature film so much as an interesting note of trivia of what Spielberg was doing at 16.
Asperger's
Steven Spielberg is currently listed in List of autistic people. My understanding was that his diagnosis is unconfirmed. Has this changed? Neurodivergent 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This has never been confirmed, either by Spielberg himself or any other person. 195.93.21.34 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:Steven_Spielberg/archive. AvB ÷ talk 12:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Did he have the traits of Asperger syndrome in his childhood?--Triple-Quadruple 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
He described school as a nightmare.
Hmmm...typical.--Triple-Quadruple 01:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Typical of children with Asperger's, that is.--Triple-Quadruple 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because for everyone else, school is like a pleasant stroll... 惑乱 分からん 23:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In his biography book (It was short, don't remember the title) he stated that he disliked school because they made fun of him for being Jewish.68.226.132.77 07:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Mary Poppins -- his plan or just an insipid gossip?
I added the Mary Poppins thing because I heard about it from forums and articles, especially Google.com. People believed that he is remaking the 1964 beloved well-known Disney musical film starring Julie Andrews which was based on the 1930s book. Lately, his rep said that these so-called gossips are impossible to be true--I think, since article headlines can be misleading, like saying "Steven Spielberg denies Mary Poppins remake fuss". So I am very uncertain about this. But the paragraph I added was deleted for "speculation". Maybe I said it improperly, but this so-called widespread talk is not a speculation. So why deletion?--Gh87 09:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I deleted the passage, because the information on the project was speculative at best. By the time your update had been put up, Spielberg's reps had already denied the rumour [1]. Because of Spielberg's high-profile status as director and producer, he is subject to almost constant rumors about what his next project will be. Most of these claims prove to be essentially baseless tabloid-fodder, and an article that tried to summarize them all (even the ones that garnered as much attention as this one) would be longer than this one is in its entirety. Besides, the very nature of this project seems highly unlikely for Spielberg, as the "Mary Poppins" musical is a Disney property. For entertainment news, internet buzz is seldom the most reliable source for information. Check with more "legitimate" Hollywood news sources like Variety or even The Hollywood Reporter for official statements about upcoming cinematic projects. Boxclocke - "!" 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Missing spoiler notice(s)?
I, for one, would have appreciated spoiler notices on the "Themes" and "Criticism" sections. Or am I just naive to have expected to be able to read the article without some "spoiler effect"? The movie list itself seems to be very careful not to contain any spoilers. TheGoblin 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Spielberg/Hanks Collaboration
Aren't Mr. Spielberg and Tom Hanks collaborating again on another WWII TV project about the war in the Pacific? Shouldn't this be mentioned here? Morhange 19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I have heard of this as well. Perhaps we could find a link to confirm? --Smell? 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
--16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Helenabucket
As was said earlier, someone has made a rather unfunny and somewhat illiterate stab at vandalizing this page. I'd fix it, but I do not have time this (or next) week.
Since there is absolutely no way of verifying whether Mr. Spielberg is sleeping with Kathleen Kennedy, we probably need to remove that section as well.
-
- Sean Connery's page isn't titled that, but when he is introduced in the opening paragraph it gives the title there. Bignole 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Sir or not?
This should be a featured article. And shouldn't Steven Spielberg be titled, Sir Steven Spielberg if he have received the KBE? The KBE article mentions that an Knight of the British Empire receives knighthood.. does the equal the right to use the title Sir? Or should it be like it's now, because it seems like Spielberg doesn't use his title.--84.217.121.177 21:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post the answer to the question above, so I'll just do it here.
No. To use the term "Sir", he would have to have been been born in the UK. Since he was born in the US, he cannot use that title even though he has been knighted.
It doesn't work like that. His place of birth is, first, entirely irrelevant. I was born in the US, but am only a British Citizen, and should I become knighted...get the title 'Sir'. Similarly, people I know who've become naturalised citizens (one from the US, the other from France) have the right to be titled 'sir'. Second, the title would not be applicable in the US (because the US does not recognise such honours being bestowed on its citizens), but he would be recognised under such title in the UK and other Commonwealth countries which recognise the system. The main issue is that he is a US national, does not reside in the UK, and while he has spent quite a bit of time in the UK, wouldn't come into contact with many people going, 'Sir Steven'. However, if he bought a property in the UK, it would be the respectful way to address him. Roche-Kerr 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Steven Spielberg should not be a "Sir" because he is not a British citizen. But, he received a KBE honor, so should KBE be added beside his name?--Sli723 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Question about criticism
So is Spielberg good because he's commercial; or is he commercial because he's good? Or let me reword that a different way; is he criticised for being commercial because he is simply popular and "commercial"; or is he commercial in his approach to films, and as a result, is commercially successful?
-
- Probably a little of both. He does do some very controversial and philosophical films (Munich, for a recent example, and Schindlers List) which clearly aren't for commercial (aka. Money-making) purposes alone (although, since directing is his career, clearly every movie has some financial motivation). However, some other movies clearly have no deep philosophical undertones but are rather just a fun, money-making feature film. However, and this is critical, I see nothing wrong with either. He is a director, so he is going to direct to make his living (money), and not everything you do in your career has to be awe-inspiring and poetic. But a lot of his films are just that, and that is what makes him special thus far. Ubergenius 14:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'd venture to guess that Munich and Schindler's List are critic bait. That's just my honest opinion. 4.155.197.238 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- However, since his career has been so successful, shouldn't he be able to make movies only for his own sake? (Or perhaps he still has obligations to fulfill for the big movie companies.) 惑乱 分からん 19:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Spielberg only ever makes films he wants to make. Wiki-newbie 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Knight?
Woah, dude. I never knew Steven Spielberg was a British Knight. That's cool. – SilverBulletx3talkcontributions 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Spurious trademarks
I object to several of the Spielberg's alleged trademarks, and vote to remove them. Specifically:
1. "Onscreen performers staring, usually at something off camera"
- This is a common moviemaking technique. Directors don't want to show everything all the time onscreen. It can also be used fror several dramatic effects. It's used by lots of other directors. Not a trademark.
2. "Consistent references to World War II"
- It this meant to infer that he refers to WW2 in every—or most—of his films? Yes, he has made acclaimed films about ww2, e.g. Schilndler's List & Saving Private Ryan. But what about Jaws, Jurassic Park, E.T. and most of his other films. Where are the reference to WW2 in them? The fact is he refers to it infrequently, but does when it is appropriate. Not a trademark.
- Actually there's a WWII reference in Jaws -- Captain Quint tells the story of when he was on the U.S.S. Indianapolis, which was sunk by the Japanese, causing many survivors of the original collapse to be eaten by sharks.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
3. "Frequent references to movies, films, music or theme parks"
- I have no idea where this came from. I don't see frequent references to these in his films. Mentioning them once or twice or frequently in one film does not make it a trademark.
4. "A common theme in many of his films: ordinary people who discover something extraordinary—people, places, artifacts, creatures, etc."
- Excuse me, but this is normally what movies are about, especially adventure & action movies. This is what most movies are about. Not a trademark, just an artifact of the film making business.
5. "Characters having difficulty believing something such as a killer shark in Jaws or the presence of aliens in Close Encounters and E.T."
- Well, these characters have a very good reason for not beleiving in such things, they are extra-ordinary. Another element common in movies. If you have extra-ordinary things happening, you're going to have some characters who are skeptics. Another artifact of the moviemaking business, not a trademark.
If anyone objects, please make your argument here. Otherwise, I will remove them in the next few days. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I must say Spielberg does like to focus his movies on extraordinary things happening in ordinary places and to ordinary people. Certainly you could argue it's common, but most Spielberg heroes are just average joes. Even Indiana Jones is a University Professor. Wiki-newbie 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The trademarks dicussion detracts from this page. The repeated reference to ordinary people interfacing to the extraordinay seems overdone. How many movies cannot be characterized like this? The last bullet under trademarks appears to be graffiti. Globular 20:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey does anybody know if Spielberg is making the Tintin movie with Tom Hanks in it? When will he be making it?! Thanks and God Bless
I disagree that the trademarks should all be removed. Very few directors have as many recognizable trademarks as Spielberg; they're sometimes crammed in almost ham-fistedly where they don't belong (when Munich goes all ET with the flashlights, for example). All but one of the examples you list should be (and, I see, have been) removed. As for your question about WWII references, it happens in two of the three films you mention, most notably Robert Shaw's fact-based monologue about the USS Indianapolis in Jaws. ET's is a little more oblique - a WWII-era movie on TV (and this also chalks one up in the "Steven Spielberg directed it" column for Poltergeist, since "A Guy Named Joe" shows up there). The Indiana Jones movies also can be considered to some degree WWII-related in nature, particularly the first and third with the Nazi antagonists. PacificBoy 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Taken
Hey, is anybody able to add something about Spielbergs miniseries "taken"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289830/ Lunarctic 12:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Image and other edits
Hi, I was surprised to find a lack of images of Spielberg in the article aside from the Times magasine one, perhaps someone could locate a suitable image of Spielberg for the beginning of the article? LordHarris 13:29, 5 September 2006 (GMT)
- Finding images is easy, finding any we can legally use is another. Most images of Spielberg floating around are copyrighted and we can't use them. So, we have to wait around for some fan or friend to post shots that they were able to catch. For example, look at the less than optimal photo of Orson Scott Card. It's pretty obvious it was a shot of him with a fan and the fan was hastily cropped out. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded the original image which dissapeared for some reason. We have no other alternative. Wiki-newbie 18:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just looked at the french version of Spielberg - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg and there is an image of him there, although I cannot understand its copyright - is it in the wikipedia commons? Can we add that as another image for the article? LordHarris 12.37, 10 September 2006 (GMT)
- Apparently it is: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Steven_Spielberg_1999_2.jpg 惑乱 分からん 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Have added the image to the article next to Saving Private Ryan section. LordHarris 12:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Have also uploaded a screenshot of Spielberg from the Cyndi Lauper Music video, under fair use of a music video image. I have also wrote a paragraph on Spielberg as executive producer and story writer for Goonies, 1985. LordHarris 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just been reading the Alfred Hitchcock article and noticed a section on further reading, listing books about the director. I've just done the same for Spielberg and made a list of the most recent and the most indepth biographies of Spielberg (as based on the Empire Magazine article from the Spielberg collectors edition). I placed it in the old bibliography section (which only had an external link, now moved to external links). User:LordHarris 18:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The main image is gone now due to lack of copyright notice. Sigh, I'll move the 90s pic. Wiki-newbie 19:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, now it won't appear. Something's up. Wiki-newbie 19:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Image had just been removed by an administrator so Ive just moved the 90s pic like you suggested. Good work with those references by the way, Im awful with them. User:LordHarris 12:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Time Cover??
I have found another image of Spielberg (that is in the US federal government domain) so have uploaded it under his personal life section (along with some info on the Department of Defence public service award he was honoured with). However I think the article could still do with another image, does anyone know if there is a restriction on the Time Fair Use and copyright policy if we have more than one image on an article. TIME magazine has done four covers of Spielberg and the 1985 director one is quite good, are we allowed to upload another Spielberg Time cover to the Spielberg Article??? [2] LordHarris 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Have added the 1990s version of time magazine (as moved picture from 1990s for beginning of page). If there is any guidelines that state no two time magazine article covers are to be on the same page (or if someone finds a better image for the 90s) then please edit. User:LordHarris 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Simpsons
How bout an image when he was guest in The Simpsons? NorwegianMarcus 13:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- That would be nice. Do you know where to find one?
Article Quality Status
I think this article has been improved a lot as is almost or is better than a B class article. To be sure if people can add more references and improve the information in an article it would definately reach GA or A status, could someone then nominate it for a peer review or a re-assessment? User:LordHarris 14.01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Has it improved a lot? I'm still unsure. Wiki-newbie 16:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well well have to keep improving it then :) User:LordHarris 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the sections themes and trademarks should be merged as one coherant section. It would read a lot better if the trademarks were identified with his themes and if it wasnt written point for point etc but rather prose. Does anyone disagree or have any ideas on this?
Also I have acquired a new Spielberg biography from a 2nd hand bookshop and will attempt to update this into a more acadamic reference quality. Ive been reading the first few chapters on his early life and when I've finished, i'll try to write a better early years section with full references. User:LordHarris 15:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
End of the 21st century?
and at the end of the 21st century LIFE named him the most influential person of his generation.
This line makes no sense, as the 21st century just started in 2000 or 2001 (depending on your reckoning). Surely it should read, "end of the 20th century." 68.252.39.119 14:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Does this belong?
From the article:
Critics such as anti-mainstream film theorist Ray Carney also complain that Spielberg's films lack depth and do not take risks. However in defense, whilst this may be true for some of his films, films like Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan are both thought provoking, deep in character and of a high risk nature due their controversial historic content.
--LeCorrector 07:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It needs a reference for Ray Carney and the whole statement should either be rewritten (especially the latter part) or either removed if no reference can be found to support the statement in its entirety. LordHarris 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
HOWLERS!!!
1) "Steven Allan Spielberg was born in Cincinnati, Ohio to his parents Arnold and Leah Adler." Spielberg was born to his parents? What are the odds of that?
2) "Spielberg recounts his first film as Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth." I recount that as my second guffaw of this article.
3) "Spielberg grew up making movies from an early age." Does this article contain any sentences WITHOUT redundancies?
4) "To avoid making his father angry about repairing the trains he chose to film the crash at the points where the trains met." The occasional use of a comma is customary in Standard English. (Not a howler, but true.)
5) "On attending Saratoga High School, he said that it was the "worst experience" of his life and "hell on Earth"." HOW old was he when he gave that interview? Who wrote this?
6) "In later life, he resigned from the national board of BSA after he had been admitted (because of his disapproval regarding the BSA's anti-homosexuality stance)." Let me get this straight (no pun intended): he resigned AFTER he "had been" admitted? What the heck does this MEAN? Could he resign BEFORE? By the way, the subject of this article might object to this being described as an event of his "later life".
7) "Spielberg once joked that his movie career began the day that he decided to jump off a tour bus at Universal Studios in Hollywood and wandered around the disused film lots. Apparently he found an abandoned janitors closet." Okay...what's the punch line?
8) "Once as an intern and guest of Universal Studios, Spielberg made his first short film for theatrical release, creating Amblin', in 1968, at the age of twenty-one." ONCE? So how many first films would you expect him to make?
9) "In later life Spielberg's own production company, Amblin Entertainment, was named after his short film." How old IS he, anyway?
10) "Whilst attending Arcadia High School in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963, at the young age of 16, Spielberg wrote and directed his first large scale independent movie. His 140-minute production was a science fiction adventure called Firelight (which would later inspire Close Encounters). The movie, with a budget of USD$400, was shown in his local movie theater and generated a profit of $100. Firelight was Spielberg's first real commercial success and the local Phoenix press wrote that he could expect great things to come." Whilst...huh??? Adam Holland 19:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Care to correct them then? Wiki-newbie 20:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the way some of the article is written i.e. its grammar or structure then feel free to edit it! Simply listing your complaints about the article and not acting on them is a complete waste of time. Consider the amount of time that you spent compiling a list of your howlers; could your time not have been better spent correcting them? If you do decide to correct them then I think you will find that "whilst" is a word in the English language and is appropriate in reference to the rest of the sentance in howler number ten. In regards to point five, it was given in an interview in the biography by Joseph Mcbride (as mentioned in reference 4!). As for the other points you mentioned they do contain errors so correct them - dont just rant about them! LordHarris 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why, if LordHarris finds my "Howlers" "a complete waste of time", he wasted time responding. Maybe he considered them only a partial waste of time. He should be reassured to know that I wasn't ranting about the poor writing, just laughing at it.
(A careful reader will also note that he totally missed the point of the two howlers he directly comments on.)
Adam Holland 20:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you waste time in replying again, in fact why I am wasting time replying to your reply? I tell you why because I did not miss the point of your comments and why havent you actually addressed the whole point of my original reply - the fact that you should have corrected them rather than rant (for you did rant, even though you consider it was humour). If you find poor writing in a wikipedia article than improve; laughing and ranting and replying about it will not improve the quality of the content! LordHarris 23:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh?
Adam Holland 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
LordHarris, you should freshen up your English spelling and grammar skills. The sentence (with an "e") structure is unreadable. Thanks for the effort. Mr. Holland is very easily amusable and has a lot of spare time. signed, non-member 30 Jul 07
Formality
So in what way is the article informal? It is encyclopedic enough in my view. Please peak the user who tagged this, because I do not expect a tag without reasoning. Wiki-newbie 17:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Parents' Names
I know that the father's name is Speilberg, and that the name Adler only came from his mother's second husband. I tried to change the intro to reflect that -- is it correctly written?
Salary
Salary 320 mil? I think that's his net worth--Energman 14:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
According to forbes thats his yearly salary, which is possible considering he owns the majority stock in Dreamworks skg and a lot of other entertainment industries. See the source for it: [3]
Just for interest, his net worth is 2.7 billion. See [4]
Edits
I have just made lots of edits for style and added a few references. Ive also added subcategories for his films as I think A.) the article flows better, and B.) Readers can access individual movies if they want. Some of the sections are quite large, some of them are small. From this is evident that some of the sub categories needed expanding, even though the whole article is quite long. As for the trivia, I have incorporated some of it into the main text. Perhaps someone would like to work with me over the coming weeks and fully incorporate the trivia section into the main article? Also perhaps someone could nominate for a new peer review and we can try and get this article to GA status?
LordHarris 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- You could get rid of the filmography section, and place that {{succession box}} at the bottom of the article. Not only does a long list divides the article in two rather unnaturally, but it is largely redundant with the sections above it. As far as I can tell, only the following movies are not given their own section in the article: I therefore suggest putting the filmography in a navigation template, or removing it from the article.
- The chronological order given in the filmography does not agree with order of the films in the article, but there's probably a good reason for this that I am unaware of.
- If you need more citations, you can reference IMDb. However, this might bloat the references section.
- Consider this an unoffical peer review. ;-)
--DavidHOzAu 02:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- As proposed, Ive just got rid of the filmography section, as the template box and the career sections of the article is more than enough of a list. I also merged the list of his tv work onto the seperate filmography article and moved that, as well as his awards box to the end of the article. I have cleaned up the introduction - for instance, it stated twice in the intro that he had won three academy awards, as well as once more in the template box on the right. I removed the long paragraph on his awards from the intro to a seperate awards category, allowing the editing of the personal section to remove the list of awards present there. Ive also added a few more references. As for close encounters it is in the article, Poltergeist is only mentioned briefly, as he only produced (though some debate that) the film. Still needs more references and the chronological order needs working, with dates of film releases for each one a must. LordHarris 19:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ive merged the other projects section with the rest of the article and deleted some lots of info that was repeated twice such as into the west and an award ceremony. Most of the other projects section was merged into work as a producer, and some into upcoming projects. I also added the dreamworks logo to the amistad section, and expanded the dreamworks sentance to a paragraph.LordHarris 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
-
The Creeping Unknown
Hello Spielberg experts. I've recently been working on building up our article on Nigel Kneale (hoping to get it eventually up to FA standard), and I'm trying to trace evidence that Kneale was an influence on Spielberg. Writer Andy Murray's biography of Kneale, Into the Unknown, mentions near the end that as a youngster, Spielberg was a big fan of The Quatermass Xperiment (released as The Creeping Unknown in the US), a 1955 film version of one of Kneale's most famous works. However, Murray doesn't say where he got this from — do any of you happen to know of any interviews with Spielberg or books about his career where his appreciation of The Creeping Unknown is mentioned? I'd like to add a mention of it in the "Influence" section of the Kneale article, but would prefer to have a more solid source. Cheers! Angmering 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Where's Schindler's List?
It seems awfully strange that Schindler's List (arguably Spielberg's most acclaimed movie) does not have it's own paragraph here. It's barely mentioned! Surely it belongs here.Kevdo 19:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Blame vandals. WikiNew 11:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Controversies section
Should include the topic of Spielberg's criticism of Roberto Benigni's Life is Beautiful. Anchoress 05:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please feel free to include it then, although dont forget a reference. LordHarris 14:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Intro/Lead
I removed a bit of the fluff/editorial stuff. The facts about this man's body of work speak volumes without that stuff. Anyways, --Tom 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, this article needed more attention than I thought. The lead seems to have gotten out of control. Anybody else think so? Thanks,--Tom 13:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Too long
I'm adding a too long template to the talk page. This article is huge. Also, rather than just having the navbox at the bottom, I would suggest a filmography section. Reywas92Talk 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Surely that would make the article even more longer! LordHarris 17:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
FILMOGRAPHY
there should be a list of all his movies
Crispin Glover Comments True?
I took a moment to check the footnote for the comment "Is it possible that the Columbine shootings would have not occurred if Steven Spielberg had never wafted his putrid stench upon our culture...". I could not find any information to support the quote from the supposed source (IMDB). Doing an admittedly quick Google search, I could not find any support from reliable sources. Can anybody support or refute the supposed comments from Glover?
- Ive just done a search and couldnt find any source for a statement that verges on libel and slander. Morover I have to argue, that despite attribution to Crispin Glover, the putrid stench comment violates living biography inclusion of material that might cause offence. I suggest the phrase and the reference be either rewritten (with new reference found) to state that Glover cites Spielberg films as the source of certain problems within society, or failing that, for the Glover criticisms to be removed in their entirety. LordHarris 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I added back the Crispin Glover criticism part, but removed the "putrid stench" etc. comments. However, it's somewhat strange that neither of you found the reference pointing to Crispin Glover's article, which was clearly there at the time. see [5], reference number 38. Azazell0 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Alientraveller removed the part, stating it was not important. I'd like to point out that (1) it's not Glover himself, it's what he says (the part about the Citizen Kane sled, the claim that Spielberg exploited tragedy for personal gain), (2) I think the hostility between Glover and Spielberg deserves to be mentioned and explained and (3) the Glover part was always there and got removed only because of the false claim that there was no reference (see the previous three comments). Azazell0 17:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Who cares about Glover and his so-called "essay"? He is a certifiable lunatic with a grudge. His comments do not belong here and should be taken about as seriously as the movies he written and directed (which are both racist and exploitative). Also, what exactly puts him in a position to critisize Steven over his relations with Wells (especially after all 6 actors he picked declined to work on the movie)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.125.254 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Poltergeist
I think Poltergeist ought to be included in the section on films he has directed. There is more than enough evidence on the subject, and I have also personally talked to someone who worked on that production who verified that Spielberg, for all intents and purposes, was the director of Poltergeist.
Consider the following: -He was the guiding creative force on the film from conception, through scripting, and casting and even storyboarding the whole thing. -He oversaw the entire production and was on set all but three days. -He personally took charge and guided the film through the entire post production process. Hooper wasn't a part of the film after shooting wrapped.
If that doesn't ammount to directing a film, I don't know what does.
He didn't direct it. And please sign your comments. Alientraveller 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Prove that he didn't. Again, there is overwhelming evidence that it was in fact directed by Spielberg. A credit does not neccesarily dictate who directed a film.
Fair use rationale for Image:Seaquest3.jpg
Image:Seaquest3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Pronounciation of the name Spielberg
Contributors to the Hebrew Wikipedia have been debating the following issue:
In Hebrew, it is common to hear people pronounce Spielberg's name as "Shpielberg" (as in the German origin) and accordingly spell with the Hebrew letter ש (Shin) which is the equivalent of sh.
Others claim that the pronunciation of the Sp in "Spielberg" should be like in the English words sport or spirit, and hence the name should be spelled with the Hebrew letter ס (Samekh) which is the equivalent of s.
Can anyone tell us how Mr. Spielberg pronounces his own name? S as in sport or as in shepherd?
--84.108.235.168 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
WTF, China and Darfur?
Does this sentence really have any place whatsoever in this article: "China has major oil interests in Sudan and has been accused of blocking moves to end the violence in Darfur." It's sure not about Steven Spielberg, and there's no source, and I've never heard that to be the case -- most I've heard is China criticized for not leaning on Sudan, but not for "blocking" anything.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan Norman
Worth a mention, BBC articles here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/62160.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/114988.stm Hpmons 16:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
New Projects
“Rap Anthem” is currently in pre-production, Steven Spielberg has been named to produce. The film for now without a director as the last few flaws of the script get worked out. Lil’ Jon has though been named as the star of the film. The plot reportedly revolves around a hip hop producer (Lil’ Jon) who gets enlisted to write and perform the national Anthem of a small eastern European country (Kosovo) seeking independence. Other names linked to the film include John Goodman, and Jessica Alba.
Spielberg Mulls Quitting Olympics to Pressure Chinese on Darfur
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3416856&page=1
Plagiarism allegations from Ray
I had added a section devoted to the well-known controversy surrounding E.T.'s originality. Satyajit Ray had famously accused Spielberg of plagiarising E.T.'s storyline from the script of his abortive Hollywood film "The Alien".
For further info, see:
www.ucsc.edu/currents/01-02/09-17/ray.html www.satyajitray.ucsc.edu/articles/sragow.html www.tcm.com/thismonth/article.jsp?cid=171891&mainArticleId=160649 www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/11592464.cms http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010802/main8.htm#3 www.indiastar.com/satyajitray.html
Surely, it is expected that Wikipedia's editors on film-reated topics shoud themselves possess at least a modicum of knowledge about cinema? That isn't too much too ask for, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananth801 (talk • contribs)
Half-wit eh? Such accusations are dealt with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial already. Alientraveller 11:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
video games
i added something about how steven spielberg is making a new game called the bloombox, but i think i referenced it wrong
here's the link: http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/games/story.html?id=76420c23-e0ea-4c8c-96da-a3394282c24f&k=86885
--Dlo2012 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Starbright foundation?
The article states "In 1991 Steven Spielberg co-founded Starbright with Peter Samuelson – a foundation dedicated to improving sick children's lives through technology-based programs focusing on entertainment and education. In 2002 Starbright merged with the Starlight Foundation forming what is now today – Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation.", which seems to contradict the main article on that topic, which states: "Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation was founded in 1983 by Dynasty star, Emma Samms and her film producer cousin, Peter Samuelson".
The main article makes no reference to the merged foundation having previously been two different foundations, and suggests that it was simply founded with its current name in 1983. DavidSJ (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Genealogy
The genealogy is too large, it flaws the article. It would be good to reduce the width somehow or use a hide/show process or something. I don't know how to this, if you have suggestions. Cenarium (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done, using Template:Hidden.Cenarium (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Working with Joan Crawford
The article states, His first professional TV job came when he was hired to do one of the segments for the 1969 pilot episode of Night Gallery. The segment, "Eyes", starred Joan Crawford (who was very supportive of her twenty-two year-old rookie director), ... In her autobiography, Joan Crawford's daughter, Christina Crawford, notes the following: (The occasion being the memorial serice for her deceased mother by the motion picture and television industries) Steven Spielberg spoke of making his directorial debut with Mother about seven years before at Universal. I remember the event well. Mother was absolutely furious with the studio for assigning her a twenty-two-year-old kid who had never done anything before.-- Doesn't that contradict what it says in the article? Katie ( Let's talk!! ) 15:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Very every Spielberg bio I've read, Joan was originally amazed they hired such a young director, but they got on very well. Steven used to have lunch with a lot of his favourite actors on the Universal lot actually. Alientraveller (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
