Talk:Steven Spielberg/Archive 2

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. – SilverBulletx3_talk^{contributions} 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)

1. 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:
   • Close Encounters of the Third Kind
   • Poltergeist (1982 film)
   • The Lost World: Jurassic Park
   I therefore suggest putting the filmography in a navigation template, or removing it from the article.
2. 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.
3. If you need more citations, you can reference IMDb. However, this might bloat the references section.
4. 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. Reywas92^Talk 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)

How Did Spielberg Avoid the Draft and Vietnam?

Spielberg has done a lot of good work on war movies, but his biography is woefully deficient in not mentioning how Spielberg himself managed to avoid the draft and the Vietnam War. For a person of his age, this was THE big event, THE big concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.74 (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Twilight Zone: The Movie - Accident

There's no mention of the legal trouble that he got into with John Landis et al regarding the Twilight Zone: The Movie helicopter accident that killed Vic Morrow and two children. Can we add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.94 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Long as it's properly sourced to avoid libel. I think it's fine that it's in John Landis' article considering he was on set when it happened. Alientraveller (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

you guys obviously have no testes u argue over the stupidest things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.192.118 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Early life

This section seems to be riddled with nonsense. I refer to the following sentence: Not moving to Utah and not applying to The University of Utah is often refferred to as a dark period of his life by many reputable historians, including wikipedia, and that is not debatable. He will never not move to Utah again. Can someone plese rectify this? Horracio (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

Was he born in 1946 or 1947? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.127.254 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article, which says December 18 1946? Alientraveller (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Highest grossing" Statement needs sourcing, precision and expansion

This quote:

...Spielberg is the highest grossing filmmaker of all time; his films having made nearly $8 billion internationally...

I am fairly certain that, indexed for inflation, Lucas's films make him the "highest gross[er]." Certainly, Lucas is the highest grossing independent filmmaker in history since Spielberg usually makes his pictures within the studio system.

What's the source of this figure?

Does it include the grosses only from films he's directed?

Does it include grosses from films he's done with other filmmakers, principally his collaborations with George Lucas? Surely a very large chunk of this purported gross has to come from the Indiana Jones's films, including the one previously (May 2008) played.

Thus the statement needs to be expanded and sourced.

PainMan (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stole E.T?

Can Somebody add some details about whether he stole E.T from Satyajit Ray or not?Qbadge (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the film's article. Alientraveller (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

simplement une suggestion :

James Camroon pour les effets sous l'eau ou l'équipe Coustaud avec plus de spécimen possible avec les requins.

Ainsi que Sarah Brightman pour la voie de la chanson thème ainsi que Josh Groban (multi-langue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.138.240 (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

simplement une suggestion :

Pour les films de Tintin.

James Camroon pour les effets sous l'eau ou l'équipe Coustaud avec plus de spécimen possibles avec les requins.

Ainsi que Sarah Brightman pour la voie de la chanson thème ainsi que Josh Groban (multi-langue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.138.240 (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

spilled the beans

What does this mean?

Spielberg spilled no beans in his attempt to build his career.

The only meaning I know for "spill the beans" is "reveal secrets". Does it really mean that he revealed no secrets while building his career? If so, why is such a thing worth mentioning? Can it be substantiated? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A new template

I've been sandboxing an additional template for things he didn't direct:

Thoughts? I actually wonder myself how excessive this is, as many of these films/shows have templates of their own, yet a few do not. For every project Spielberg passionately involved himself in, there are many others he just wanted to see happen, which is the nature of producing films really (producers can either be second-in-command to the director or do nothing at all). Alientraveller (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulation's. Go right ahead! —Wildroot (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's a very well-structured template. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Commas and some reorganization

I feel that the sentence: "There are of course exceptions" under the Themes sub-section should be replaced with: "There are, of course, exceptions". I also think that the Themes, Upcoming Projects and Contemporaries sub-sections should be their own sections as they apply to all his movies, not just the ones after 1997. I would edit it myself but the page is semi-protected. 24.18.240.159 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Diana Napolis

Spielberg was stalked by Diana Napolis, which was created yesterday and is currently an orphan. Is it worth being added? Spielberg was also stalked by another person according to one of my references but I doubt that it's worth a mention. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like wikipedia editors to change the allegation that I "stalked" Steven Speilberg. Mr. Speilberg obtained a restraining order against me so that I would not confront him at a public event. I was never arrested, charged, or convicted for "stalking" Steven Spielberg. Please correct this. Diana Napolis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.142.70 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Several sources use the word stalking. They are reliable. No reason to change the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Catch Me If You Can's 'Unique' Title Sequence

It's not entirely "unique" - its great, but doesn't it reference vintage title sequences from 1950s and 60s Hollywood? Icanseeformilesandmiles (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Was raiders really the highest-grossing film made at the time

Dear All: I never heard that Raiders of the Lost Ark was the highest-grossing film made at the time. As a kid I remember being upset when ET out gross Star Wars. I do not see anything on the Raiders of the Lost Ark page but simply the claim it was ‘the top grossing film of 1981’ not all time. If you look at the data from IMDB (true releases will have affect this data) there is reason to believe it was never more than fifth (worldwide) or fourth (North America).

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) $383,900,000 - $242,374,454 Gone with the Wind (1939) $390,500,000 - $198,655,278 Jaws (1975) $470,600,000 - $260,000,000 Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $533,800,000 - $290,158,751 Star Wars (1977) $797,900,000 - $460,935,665

Unless someone can give a reference I suggest raiders is removed. Jniech (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Shooting star trademark

Does anyone else think that Spielberg's trademark of including a shooting star in his films might be worth a mention? It turns up in most of his films as far as I can tell, but I'm not sure where we'd get a source. --PenguinCopter (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazing Stories

The series which Spielberg created, produced, and twice directed episodes in is not mentioned. It was called "Steven Spielberg's Amazing Stories" for a while if I recall, so I think it should at least be mentioned in passing here: [6] Trevor GH5 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg - an "american" film maker?

I'm sorry, but Spielberg is jewish...This article should be modified...I edited and changed american to jewish but now it's back to american...Why the need to disinform the people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.20.3 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no disinformation - Spielberg was born in Ohio, therefore he's American. The informtion about him being Jewish is already in the article in another section. Your removal of American in the lead sentence was inappropriate, which is why it was reverted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

born in America makes u an American, it's pretty racist to call anyone else by a social or cultural group "it's as if someone is less American or less wherever you're from" Markthemac (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jodorowsky quote

Please provide an explanation for the relevance of the Jodorowsky quote. My position is that it is an ad hominem attack, not a legitimate critique. Cursing and indicating you would like to kill someone isn't miraculously a constructive, useful comment just because you are famous (if anything, the quote reflects more on Jodorowsky than Spielberg, and would make more sense on his page). Having read it, do you have additional knowledge of Spielberg? The fact that high profile film makers have detractors is not exactly news; unless the detractor is pointing out relevant flaws in his film making style, there is no justification for including defamation. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The section in question is called "Praise and criticism", and Jodorowsky is free to express his critique in any way he sees fit, whether or not it seems relevant, informative or constructive to you personally. The fact that it is a filmmaker, and he's voicing an opinion on Spielberg, makes the quote relevant without any doubt. What you're trying to do here is pure censorship. You're free to include the quote on the Jodorowsky page if you wish, but as long as I have access to the Internet, it definitely stays on the Spielberg page.

MeatTycoon (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon, on the 17th of December, a dark and cold winter night.

See BLP guidelines:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

I think a man frothing at the mouth with hatred for Spielberg, and who can't even muster a coherent argument for why he hates him, is neither relevant to the subject's notability, nor is it written in a responsible or conservative tone. I don't object to criticism in general, but Jodorowsky's quote is beyond the pale.

By the way, when you say:

…as long as I have access to the Internet, it definitely stays on the Spielberg page.

you're veering into ownership territory. You are not the sole arbiter of what should and should not be on this article. If you believe your quote is valid and I am being unreasonable, please post at WP:BLPN. I'm more than willing to accept my opinion on this being put up for review. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The material is presented in respectable and "conservative" (???) manner, it's just that the material itself is not respectable or conservative. If it was your way, there would be no Wikipedia article for the word "fuck".

You can post on BLPN if you're not pleased with something. Me, I feel cold looking at those letters. Makes me think of VLKSM.

78.36.212.246 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)MeatTycoon

WP:BLPN request opened here. And MeatTycoon, reverting as an IP user doesn't magically render you immune to WP:3RR. Given that your edits are controversial attack speech, per WP:BLP it is permissible to violate 3RR to remove them, but not to re-add them. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 23:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

BIOSHOCK CITATION

For those in need of the source where Shia Lebouf says Spielberg is interested in the game Bioshock...

<http://kotaku.com/5009239/even-spielberg-cannot-beat-bioshocks-mysterious-god-spider-huh>

Yeah, I don't know if you people can use it, but whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.87.81 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

E.T., Amistad, Poltergeist, etc. original authors

The question was asked if "E.T." was actually based on someone else's work. I know there was a lawsuit about it (I remember reading about it in the lawbooks a few years ago, some woman claimed the movie was based on her original writing, can't remember the outcome (these suits drag on for years); there was a lawsuit about "Amistad" being ripped off--some woman wrote a book called "Roar of Lions", she hired a screenwriter to write a screenplay of her book but halfway through he quit and wrote it for Spielberg instead or something along those lines; "Poltergeist" seems to be based on a Twilight Zone episode on March 16, 1962 called "Little Girl Lost" by Richard Matheson. Hollywood is a cesspool of script theft--just look up Hollywood script theft on the Internet and you'll come up with all kinds of cases (even "Shakespeare in Love" was stolen from several writers). Usually, if there's a settlement, the ripped-off writer agrees not to talk about the case as part of the settlement, that's why people don't hear about all these script hijackings. They're recorded in the lawbooks, though, under Federal statutes (United States Code 501 to 506 or something). Copyright comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 8. Oh, here's something, regarding "E.T.": a case involving a Lisa Litchfield and "Lokey From Maliemar" in Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Circuit, 1984). Here's some more legal stuff: copyright falls under federal jurisdiction, 17 USC (United States Code) 101 et seq. and 28 USC. If Wiki editors out there would like to go to any law library and do further research in the lawbooks it would be illuminating and very interesting, since there's all kinds of script theft in Hollywood going back a hundred years and all kinds of cases listed in the lawbooks. I read lawbooks every once in a while. I don't know if law books are accessible on the Internet. Wiki could start an entire site on Hollywood script theft that would run on for probably a hundred pages. The most famous case I suppose is "The Terminator" being stolen from Harlan Ellison--and now sci fi fans are saying "Avatar" was based on a Poul Anderson story named "Call Me Joe" and a bunch of other writings. So Spielberg is working in a field where script theft is standard operating procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.182.221 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Spielberg and Plagiarism

Ah, here we go: the novel referred to was "Echo of Lions" by Barbara Chase-Riboud, from which "Amistad" was stolen. The very interesting thing about this case is that Jackie Kennedy Onassis gave a copy of this book to Steven Spielberg and that's how he first heard about it. "Twister" was plagiarized from "Catch The Wind" by Stephen Kessler, and so forth. There's an excellent site on the Internet about Spielberg and script theft in general called Wild Realm Film Reviews: Spielberg and Plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.182.221 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken kink - reference 53

"The 50 most influential baby boomers: Top 10". Life.com. http://www.life.com/Life/boomers/50boomers01.html#05. Retrieved 2006-10-21.
Would anyone care to fix this?> Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cincinnati, Ohio or Gary, Indiana?

He is listed as being born in both Cincinnati, Ohio and Gary, Indiana. Which one is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.168.59 (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone should update "Upcoming projects"

Since some works like Band of Brothers have been already released. I don't find myself confident enough with english to do it, so I'm just letting everyone know. --GetFresh (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should. I found this! Looks great. --HoopoeBaijiKite 02:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The spirit of the Holocaust

"Kertész then went on to praise Life Is Beautiful as a film that is truthful to the spirit of the Holocaust, if not its reality." Maybe this is only my non-perfect English, but this sentence sounds weird. --Droben (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Six decades ?

Er... (born December 18, 1946 )[1] is an American film director, screenwriter, and film producer. In a career spanning six decades,. 1946 + 60 = 2006. Did he start directing at age 4 ? --Webwizard (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Six decades is correct. This does not mean 60 years. "Spanning six decades" means that he has worked in film during six different decades: 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s. This usage is not uncommon.Mk5384 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect. At present, his career extends from 1968 to 2010. It "spans" the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's, and only about two years of the 60's and half of 2010. That is not "Spanning six decades" - very misleading. The average reader will interpret "Spanning six decades" to mean "60 years".Shirtwaist (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Geisha?

Yesterday I#ve had the chance to look at "Geisha" in german TV. Steven Spielberg was mentioned as producer. Is ist true? or just the fake the germans like to do in name droppig wizhout responsible product conditions.I'm off line now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaide (talk • contribs) 09:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Praise and criticism

Trying to improve the Praise and Criticism section of the Spielberg article. Both Kertesz' and Gilliam's quotes are not only too long but they are not germaine to a discussion of Spielberg's work. Yes, by all means let us allow for a section that shows controversy over his work, but shouldn't the content be substantive rather than personal despite that the quotes are from (1) a well-known director and/or (2) an author of books. Both quotes included (Kertesz and Gilliam) are more discussions over film theory and, for that matter, perhaps Holocaust "theory" as well and as such are more appropriate in that context. Both make criticism not of the film but simply because they believe his film "Schindler's List" did not adhere to what they believe the Holocaust was about. Kertesz' remark that I deleted ran along the lines that Spielberg went to great lengths to be authentic in the film but that somehow Sp. was not entitled to do so because he's not a survivor himself and was born after the war. That's a bit ridiculous in itself. Gilliam's criticism was comparing Sp. to Kubrick. What? How is that relevant? Sounds like a personal opinion to me relative to personal taste and I'm just trying to keep opinion regarding a living person to a minimum. Does it matter that the opinion is a quote from a director? If it is important to fill the section on criticism, I'd like to see a little more substantive research rather than slamming a quote just because it came from someone with a "name." Are there foundations or specific, well-founded criticism over his work on Schindler's List that might be more appropriate? If these quotes stay, then for every director/filmmaker listed in wikipedia, perhaps there should be a section for each of them with quotes from people who didn't like their films.--Verite Story (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This material has been there for quite a long time - not just "slammed in" - and in my opinion directors and writers comparing one director to another is valid, interesting, and encyclopedic. This is not just someone saying he didn't like Spielberg's films. By all means, go out and do some research and present critiques that you find more appropriate - but the way you edited this was heavy-handed, especially since this material is long-standing. Let's see if other editors here have something to say about it - meanwhile, please leave it in. Tvoz/talk 05:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was probably a bit heavy-handed in the editing - I should have played with it a bit in the sandbox first. Mea culpa. However, I'm sorry you took offense to my use of the wording "slammed" in because, frankly, it seems as if it is. If one is going to compare Spielberg to Kubrick (and why wouldn't Gilliam prefer Kubrick, they have similar stylistic/thematic elements), then perhaps one should also compare Spielberg to Ridley Scott or Sydney Pollack or how about Woody Allen? The critiques of the film should be in the article on Schindler's List, not on Spielberg. Just because the quotes have "been there for quite a long time" does not make them valid entries. Perhaps no one with enough sense about an appropriate discussion of film has entered into the discussion. Critiques of a single film by a single director and a single author with personal tastes that are just that -- personal taste -- do not make valid commentary on a man's life. This is film theory, not biography. Kertisz' rationale reminds me of Adorno.--Verite Story (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This section is organized terribly. The criticisms can stay but they need to be trimmed a bit. Their needs to be some balance as well.Thedeparted12345 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeparted12345 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This section has definately improved. The section has been organized effectively. More has been mentioned of Spielberg's influence and praise, while still mentioning his criticisms. Much better.Thedeparted123 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Praise & criticism question

Can someone please tell me why so much space is given to extensive, broken-out quotes in the Steven Spielberg (Praise and Criticism/Film) section and all the broken-out quotes are criticisms of Spielberg's body of work? Within the paragraph structure, there's first an extensive list of famous directors/fans and influences with a HItchcock quote , a positive quote from a critic ( Tom Shone) and then a two-sentence paragraph, one "anti" quote from Goddard and one pro from Ebert. If reliably-sourced mainstream film critics were in agreement that Spielberg's work is just plain awful, then that should be made clear but what is present within the section now doesn't seem to fairly present the full opinion-spectrum towards Spielberg's œuvre. Maybe I'm wrong but the space-disparity strikes me as somewhat odd and not reflective of over-all critical opinion.Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you are right, in a way. There are far more reliably sourced praise quotes, than criticism. It's not even close, 90-10. But there are some anti-Spielberg editors that keep pushing the criticism. There is nothing wrong with having the quoted criticism in the article, but it does seem to take up more space than it deserves. Dave Dial (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there are IP-editors who seems to insist on adding extensive quotes of film theorists critical of Spielberg's work, then it is only fair that more of the scope of entire criticism about Spielberg be included in this Wikipedia article. Looking at the page, the sheer amount of the various stand-out quotations from Kael, Gilliam et al criticizing Spielberg as a director and to then not give any stand-out quotes to differing views smacks of POV-pushing. Also, the adjectives chosen to describe Miss Kael's writings introduces a level of bias that is unacceptable in a Wikipedia article. The text in a Wikipedia article is supposed to be neutral, but there isn't anything neutral about using the following words to describe Kael's state of mind regarding Spielberg:

• expressed deep disappointment
• even more pointed in criticizing what she saw as Spielberg's recent tendencies toward mawkishness and banal self-importance:

Anyone interested in these guidelines should take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) and Wikipedia:Weasel words#Editorializing. Shearonink (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I cut down some of the lengthy quotations, took out the huge quotation marks, and removed a paragraph that was sourced to YouTube. If you would like to organize it in a better manner, I would support that too. It seems as if someone has tried to gather every bad critique of Spielberg and put it in this article. Which is hardly correct, or within the weight guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Norman arrest and jail time

"Jonathan Norman was arrested after making two attempts to enter Spielberg's Pacific Palisades home in June and July 1997. Norman was jailed for 25 years in California." Was he really in jail for 25 years?? 79.178.4.53 (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Kael comment-timeline

Pauline Kael quotes

Pauline Kael quotes The late film critic, Pauline Kael, who had enthusiastically championed Spielberg's films in the 1970s, expressed deep disappointment in his later development, stating that “ he’s become, I think, a very bad director. Even his best work in Schindler’s List is very heavy-handed. And I’m a little ashamed for him, because I loved his early work. I loved The Sugarland Express. And 1941 was a wonderful comedy. It didn’t make it with the public, but he should have had enough brains to know it was a terrific piece of work and to not be so apologetic about it. Instead, he turned to virtuous movies. And he’s become so uninteresting now. I think of the work he did in E.T. and Close Encounters, and I think that he had it in him to become more of a fluid, far-out director. But, instead, he’s become a melodramatist. ” In a 2000 interview for Cineaste, Kael was even more pointed in criticizing what she saw as Spielberg's recent tendencies toward mawkishness and banal self-importance: “ He's gone to the pulpit. Everything has gone flat in his directing. He had such flair in Jaws, and his early movies. He seemed so sophisticated and intelligent — so sharp about what he was doing. There's still a little bit of joy in the Indiana Jones trilogy. But now there's a real simpleton's morality that he hands the audience, like when you hear him on television saying that everyone should be forced to see Schindler's List. Soon he and Benigni, director of Life is Beautiful, will be working up a doubles act. ”

These are reliably sourced quotes from a major film critic that have appeared in several publications, including print, and which are quite relevant to the discussions. It should not be removed on some vague and arbitrary basis just because it offends the sensibilities of some pro-Spielberg editors. Obviously, Kael loved his early work and hated his later work. It's fair and appropriate comment in that it both serves as praise and criticism simultaneously.70.79.75.159 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-Spielberg editors"? I think that Wikipedia guidelines suggest that all verifiable/reliably-sourced points of view should be evenly represented in the article. As I have posted elsewhere on this page I do think there is too much sheer space devoted to broken-out quotes from Spielberg critics. Pauline Kael's quotes (yes, she's an important film-critic but she's not the only voice speaking about him) concerning Mr.Spielberg (whatever else one might think of him, he is arguably the most financially-successful film director of the late 20th Century) should be available in reliable sources. In the spirit of editorial fairness, maybe more space should be devoted to positive comments regarding Spielberg's body of work. Shearonink (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, I mostly agree. I will also say that I believe the Kael quotes did occur, but I could not find any reliable sourcing to prove that. Even then, if there is a reliable source, any mention should be minimal and definitely not to the extent the ip is trying to add. Dave Dial (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable print sources have been added for the Kael quotes, which have been duly corrected.24.84.212.236 (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it incredibly interesting that 24.84.212.236 geolocates to the exact same area as 70.79.75.159 - same exact DSL provider, location, and identical latitude/longitude coordinates... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ciacopelli17, 14 April 2011

Please change: "His actual career began when he returned to Universal Studios as an unpaid, seven-day-a-week intern and guest of the editing department (uncredited)" to: Spielberg broke into Universal Studios, which makes him a legend in the movie industry. He took the Universal Studios Tour, an attraction that enables visitors to get an inside look at the movie business. Visitors ride around the studio lots on a tram. Steven sneaked off the tram and hid between two sound stages until the tour ended. When he left at the end of the day, he made a point of saying a few wirds to the gate guard. Day after day, he went back to the studio for three months. He walked past the guard, waved at him, and he waved back. He always wore a suit and carried a briefcase, letting the guard assume he was one of the students with a summer job in the studio. He made a point of speaking to and befriending directors, writers, and editors. He even found a vacant office, took it over, and listed his name in the building directory. He made it his business to get to know Sid Sheinberg, then head of production for the studio's television arm. He showed him his college film project, which so impressed Sheinberg that he put the young man under contract with the studio as an unpaid, seven-day-a-week intern and guest of the editing department (uncredited).

Ciacopelli17 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I have declined this request as it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. It is not written in a neutral manner and it is not verifiable. Please remedy these issues before reactivating this request. Thanks, Woody (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

I'd like to remind any and all contributors to this article that using leading adjectives that could be construed as either too laudatory or too denigrating and using terms that aren't supported by the cited sources goes against a Wikipedia core principle of neutral point of view.

"However, Spielberg is not without his critics—many of whom describe his films as overly sentimental and tritely moralistic."

Yes, some critics haven't liked Spielberg or a particular movie, but the cited sources don't clearly state that all his films are overly sentimental and tritely moralistic. To me the words "sentimental" and "moralistic" accurately convey the critics' views from the cited sources.

Shearonink (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, and there may be some overly laudatory adjectives throughout the article also, although they are weighted much more by reliable sourcing than much of the criticism. Plus, the ip editor(24.84.212.236) who continuously added material objected to by editors as undue criticism, seems to have made alternate accounts(Incurable insomniac 1) to add the same material because the BLP article is protected. Dave Dial (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Pacific

Speaking as someone who cannot edit this article, I would like to know why Speilberg's Emmy for "The Pacific" isn't listed in the "Awards" section of the article. Could someone please tell me why? 107.10.8.145 (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because Wikipedia has over 3.5 million articles and everything isn't up-to-date all the time? Thanks for pointing out the missing information, as soon as I can source the Emmy award, I'll see about adding it to the article. If you're interested in editing, why not create an account? Then after four days and ten edits, you'll be able to edit the article yourself. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Honours?

Shouldn't he have 'KBE' placed after his name? Considering he was awarded a Royal British honour! He is perfectly entitled to be recognised as such British or not as the case may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.240.140 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, KBE was after his name on the article but it has been removed. Speilberg has accepted the award and is entitled to use it so I think it should be there on the title. I think some Americans oject to these sort of things for their citizens. I am not sure what the wiki policy is though

Upcoming projects: Ghost in the Shell - Live action Movie

DreamWorks has acquired rights to the Japanese postcyberpunk manga Ghost in the Shell after Steven Spielberg took personal interest in the popular anime property. He is currently working in the development stage of the film, not a lot of detail has been released.

reference: http://www.slashfilm.com/dreamworks-to-make-live-action-ghost-in-the-shell-movie-in-3d/ http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=14457 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell#Films http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117984029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.7.123 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns - Sourcing, assertions, original research

This article is a WP:BLP, meaning it is an article about a living person (or a "biography of a living person"). BLPs are held to an even higher standard of sourced information than the rest of Wikipedia, because (I know it's obvious), the subject is still living...there are possible real-life issues beyond the page that can then get entangled with what is written there. That being said, even with all the references for this article, there are several important sections that seem to consist principally of unsourced assertions or original research with few or no inline citations, for instance:

• Production credits
• Themes
• Contemporaries

The Praise and criticism section, the Hobbies(!) section and even THE POLITICS SECTION(!!) all have more references than Production credits, Themes and Contemporaries, most of which have more to do with Mr. Spielberg's main claim to WP:Notability...his movies. I know that there must be many editors who are interested in this subject and in this article, I can't be the only one who thinks these important sections could do with quite a bit of improving. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So why is no one allowed to edit this precious article?

Just wondering. Has someone decided that Steven Spielberg is such a sacred cow that no one should be allowed to add or change anything in the article about him?70.79.75.159 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'someone' around Wikipedia who can decide a subject is some kind of sacred cow. Right now, because of persistent vandalism, this particular article is just semi-protected. That means that any auto-confirmed user can edit the article.

From Vandalism on Wikipedia and WP:Autoconfirmed#Autoconfirmed users...

Semiprotected articles are those that can only be edited by those with an account that is considered to be auto-confirmed, i.e.that it is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits.

Wikipedia:Why create an account? explains the many benefits of creating an account for yourself, some of those benefits being Privacy, receiving e-mail through the Wikipedia system, using more advanced editing tools and having a Watchlist. You really should consider registering for an account if you want to edit and work on articles. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Who has been "vandalizing" this article? How and why has this been happening? I've noticed that some so-called administrators on this site have a very loose definition of what constitutes "vandalism". In my experience, "vandalism" on Wikipedia usually just means when someone contributes something to an article that, for whatever arbitrary and capricious personal reason, the admin just doesn't like or doesn't agree with. And so, the said admin feels an overwhelming urge to revert the contribution wholesale and then try to stamp the contributor out of existence at all costs. This petulant and annoying knee-jerk reaction on the part of the admin is typically attended by a phony, ostentatious, grandstanding display of self-important, self-righteous arrogance (i.e., all that puffery about protecting the precious site against all those hordes of nasty vandals just waiting to pounce and rip articles apart like a pack of ravenous hyenas), as well as some hysterical and scurrilous statement disparaging the moral character and intelligence of the contributor. If you asked me, it is precisely these sorts of small-minded, sanctimonious, power-tripping admins who are the real vandals here.70.79.75.159 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Seems like you have a pretty solid grasp of how Wikipedia works and why it's generally not accepted as a source by most college professors. In Wikiworld, words like "verifiability", "factual", "reliable" and others don't mean what they mean anywhere else. You can see something that you know is wrong on the level of 2 + 2 = 3 but if it's in an article written by some screw-up hack that happened to end up in a "reliable" source it's treated as the sacred gospel. I know someone who was responsible for managing the showbiz career of their now famous family member who I guarantee you've heard of and they couldn't believe how inaccurate the article about them was. Not gossip stuff but dates, times, titles etc. - just basic, mundane facts that were simply wrong....but came from "reliable" sources.

How much validity an article contains is largely a crap-shoot - depends on the agenda of whatever cabal has exerted their influence on an article. It can actually be entertaining to see some of this unfold, when an "uninvolved admin" is called upon to review something and they can't string together three correctly spelled words and exhibit no understanding whatsoever of the subject matter. One wonders which Domino's franchise they deliver for. You never know who it is that you're dealing with. An admin whose real life ID I became aware of is currently serving time for child molestation. This guy was the stereotypical admin who had a long history of pissing people off on here with his capriciousness and puffery. He sounded exactly like any number of admins on here.

It's not about truth or accuracy, it's about consensus by whatever faction whose members' primary qualification is they're willing to devote large chunks of their lives to Wikipedia so they can drape themselves with pretentious Wikititles, be given Wikiawards, be on Wikicommittees, and generally (and ironically) gain "identity" by being part of the Wikiborg. Welcome to Wikipedia! TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Register an account then and you can edit the article after ten edits and four days as an auto-confirmed editor. Beyond that, before any further posting, please take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.

Again, register an account so you can edit Wikipedia semi-protected articles as freely as any other auto-confirmed editor. After all, your IP (assuming all the edits are personally yours) has over 2500 edits, someone at your IP enjoys editing Wikipedia, whoever it is, you might as well receive the benefits of having a registered account. In regards to this article's subject, I think it is important for everyone to keep in mind that the article itself is the biography of a living person with all the care to detail and to sources and to tone that the concept entails. --Shearonink (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wunderkinder Foundation

Spielberg's "The Wunderkinder Foundation", German for "child prodigies", suffered significant losses as a result of the Bernard Madoff financial collapse. (See: "Preliminary Estimates of Madoff Exposure", "Spielberg's Wunderkinder Foundation joins list of Madoff victims") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading

The very first sentence "In a career spanning five decades..." is misleading, it almost makes it sound like he's been directing movies in Hollywood since the early 1960's, since he really began directing in the LATE 1960's, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that his career has spanned a little more than four decades since he would have been under 18 until 1964? Zeelog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism Aspects of Spielberg's Career

I think a section on plagiarism should be added, since Spielberg seems to be a repeat offender in this regard ("Amistad" is probably his best known example of script rip-off). There's a site on the Internet called "Wild Realm Film Reviews: Spielberg Plagiarism" if Wiki editors want a quick overview. Court cases involving plagiarism are a matter of public record, so it should be easy to reference script theft cases. Stealing scripts is a big industry in itself in Hollywood, going back a hundred years, but I haven't been able to find a Wiki site on Hollywood script theft yet, I wonder if somebody is working on one. Yes, I realize Wiki sites on movie personalities tend to be fawning and sycophantic because of the Hollywood "fan" syndrome, but I think stealing somebody else's hard work and claiming it as your own is an important aspect of a person's life and personality that should be noted since stealing defines them more than anything else. What do Wiki editors think? 69.238.198.121 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Register for an account, have it be over a certain number of days/edits and you too can edit this article. Be WP:BOLD. You would have to source all possible allegations very scrupulously though - alleging plagiarism in a WP:BLP article would be a very serious accusation.Shearonink (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)