Talk:Steven Spielberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Peer review Steven Spielberg has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Can this be confirmed?

This Day in Rotten History -- Jul 11, 1997

Bodybuilder and wannabe actor Jonathan Norman is arrested for trespassing on Steven Spielberg's estate in Malibu, California. Believing that the film director "wanted to be raped," Norman had brought along a kit containing handcuffs, duct tape, nipple clamps, chloroform, and a stun gun.

(Source: http://www.dailyrotten.com/)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Knight?

Woah, dude. I never knew Steven Spielberg was a British Knight. That's cool. – SilverBulletx3talkcontributions 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Simpsons

How bout an image when he was guest in The Simpsons? NorwegianMarcus 13:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/Talk%7ESteven_Spielberg_08be.html"