Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] GA review

It meets all the requirements for GA status. I'm going to pass it.

[edit] Little bit of FAC reading

These are some things I think should be addressed before it goes to FAC, which I know it will soon.

  1. Copy editing. Some dependent clauses are missing commas after them, and since the film is American, words like "whilst" will have to be replaced with "while" (and other similar spelling nuances).
  2. I'd make all the image rationales look like the poster, it will help in defending them in the FAC.
  3. I'd probably change "Reception" to "Release"...and have a subsection for "Reception". This way all the criticism and awards can be placed together.
  4. It might be good to get a couple more negative, or mixed reviews for the film if possible, just to keep the balance.
  5. Oh, you'll probably need a citation in the lead for the "greatest film of all time" comment. It's a very strong comment that will need some backup.
  6. There will probably need to be some restructuring of sentences, some seemed a bit weak (e.g. A negative review came from... but this statement also goes with adding some more mixed commentary)
  7. Something may need to be done with the religion information, and the buckle up promo. They seem out of place in the reception section, especially the buckle up information. I can't think of a good way to separate them (either by subsection, or completely new section). Hopefully the actual FAC will provide some help with that.

That's it for now. I didn't get into specifics (i'll save that for the FAC), because I didn't have the time. But, hopefully I have given some incite into some things that should be looked over real quick.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Is it possible to provide a clear picture of E.T. in the article? I just realized that the article doesn't really show the alien himself in any clear, up-close form. The Christian allegory picture isn't that clear. I think an image could sit nicely in Production, with all the critical commentary available about the creature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A fair use sniffer came into the FAC and eventually there was a compromise to keep the allegory picture to kill two birds with one stone. But there are publicity pics of Spielberg with his alien. I think that could work. Alientraveller 07:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's images here and here. Take your pick. Alientraveller 16:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if any of them really fit. The second to last one at the second link show him pretty clearly, but he's only a small part of the shot. Are there any other pictures elsewhere? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
What about this for the Christian allegory? E.T. isn't obscured by smoke, though I don't know if the robe in the existing image is important. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Spielberg definitely said it was the robe and the smoke and the glowing heart bit that made people go, "Oooh, that reminds me of the fella I surrendered my soul to." But considering I can't find a decent screencap of that bit, I would be willing to lose it for something of Spielberg or Rambaldi along with their alien on-set. Alientraveller 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This sentence no verb

There's no verb in this sentence: "His convincing tears that were inspired by thoughts of his dead dog." I'd say a "GA" article should have that fixed...

It's a wiki. Fix it yourself, but I did it for you anyway. Learn not to waste time. Alientraveller 09:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

  • [1] - this talks about the Christ-figure. Might be useful.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ilsa J. Bick, "The Look Back in "E.T." Cinema Journal 31.4 (1992)
  • Andrew Gordon, "E.T. as Fairy Tale" Science-Fiction Studies 10 (1983) not available online
  • Marina Heung, "Why E.T. Must Go Home: The New Family in American Cinema" Journal of Popular Film and Television 11.2 (1983) not available online
  • Jeffrey L. Derzner, "E.T.: An Odyssey of Loss" The Psychoanalytic Review 70.2 (1983) not available online
  • Vivian Sobchack, "Child/Alien/Father: Patriarchal Crisis and Generic Exchange" Camera Obscura 15 (1986) not available online
  • Enter Textuality: Echoes from the Extra-Terrestrial, by Thomas A. Sebeok. Poetics Today 1985.
  • Of Living Machines and Living-Machines: Blade Runner and the Terminal Genre, by William Fisher, New Literary History 1988 (just read through this, not that helpful. Calliopejen1 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm going to keep these here so that I don't lose track of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes about online availability are mine, this is me searching through the harvard library databases. Calliopejen1 14:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code Monkeys

I made that addition. I think it was fairly poor. I would appreciate it if that was made better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajavato (talk • contribs) 14:14, July 9, 2007

Alientraveller and I have removed your addition because it is too trivial to be included in the encyclopedic context of this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] film criticism of e.t. not available online

I've been trying to help get some good stuff for F.A.-level coverage of film criticism of E.T., but I'm overseas and don't have access to a library. I did some searching in online film criticism bibliographies and databases, and here are the most relevant article listings I've found whose articles themselves aren't online anywhere. (If Harvard doesn't have access I doubt anyone does.) The descriptions are from the bibliographies/databases. FYI the numbers in parens are ISSNs, helpful for looking up periodical names (like an ISBN).

  • FREER, Ian: Empire's tribute to Steven Spielberg. Empire n.105 , March 1998, p.96-112, English, illus. A sixteen-page tribute to Steven Spielberg which considers each of his sixteen films chronologically up to SCHINDLER'S LIST (1994).
  • HARWOOD, Sarah: Family Fictions in E.T. Changing English (1358-684X) v.2 n.2 , October 1995, p.149-170, English. A discussion of the treatment of family in E.T
  • NORMAN, Barry: E.T. Has Landed. Radio Times v.267 n.3497 , 22 December 1990, p.38-39, 41, English, illus. Barry Norman reviews the film - its themes, images and the director Spielberg - plus, a short item on Drew Barrymore and what has happened to her since E.T.
  • Movie (0027-268X) n.31/32 , December 1986, p.Winter 28-34, English. Dissection of some of the GB reviews of the film, in particular those by Chris Auty and Gilbert Adair; examination of 'Utopia' and the 'Gothic' in Spielberg's work, especially E.T.
  • Metro (0312-2654) n.63 , January 1984, p.43, English. Article presenting the story of E.T. as an analogy of the life of Christ.
  • Listener (0024-4392) v.108 n.2777 , 09 September 1982, p.19, English. Article which looks at the creation of myths in the cinema, with reference to the 'fairytale' atmosphere of ET
  • (foreign-language) Télérama n.1803 , August 1984, p.30-31, French. Article on what the psychoanalysts say about the film.
  • (foreign-language) Cinema Nuovo (0009-711X) v.32 n.286 , December 1983, p.8-9, Italian. Article on the psychology of the film, and why the audience identifies emotionally with E.T.
  • (foreign-language) Benedict, Sebastien. "Peut-on etre et ravoir E.T." Cahiers du Cinema (0008-011X) no. 568 (May 2002) p. 66-7, French. The writer reflects on Steven Spielberg's E.T., 20 years after it was first released. He considers what it is like to watch the film after 20 years. He goes on to discuss the relationship between Elliot and E.T., claiming that no other film has since created one that is as moving. He also analyzes the effect of the emergence of television on our appreciation of the film.
  • Sheehan, Henry. "The Panning of Steven Spielberg." Film Comment (ISSN:0015-119X) v. 28 (May/June 1992) p. 54-60. "Starting with Empire of the Sun 5 years ago, director Steven Spielberg has been on a rapid rise to artistic maturity that reached its culmination in Hook. Spielberg is by far the most powerful and influential filmmaker in Hollywood, but he has always been considered artistically marginal, even by his fans. .... This boy/man is the figure most consistently found throughout Spielberg's work, beginning with Duel (1971). Several of Spielberg's films are discussed, including Sugarland Express, 1941, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Color Purple, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom."

It appears that lexis-nexis doesn't have any film reviews from the early 1980s by anyone other than WaPo and the NYT but those two are pretty good and discuss key themes. I'll put in some content from those, as well as the few articles that are up on JSTOR, soon. Calliopejen1 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I found Sheehan's. Alientraveller 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] screencap of e.t.?

can one be added to the production section where they talk about what they decided to make e.t. look like? I think this is a pretty clear-cut example of fair use - it is necessary to show the main character of the movie, and none of the current pictures do this. Calliopejen1 09:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A fair use hound popped up during the FAC, and Bignole suggested using the "Christ allegory" picture to "kill two birds with one stone". The screencap I found is weak though: but nobody I know with PowerDVD actually has E.T. on DVD, so there's the problem. Alientraveller 09:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would ditch the Christ picture, considering this particular image isn't discussed in-text (besides the caption) and that the Christ analysis definitely isn't the most common/important one. It would be much more helpful to just have a decent picture of E.T. so people know what he looks like, and the production section would be a perfect place to put that--where filmmakers' choices about his appearance is discussed. BTW there is no source for the picture of the Reagans with Spielberg. Are we sure this was taken by a US govt employee? Calliopejen1 08:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA pass

I'd like to thank the following editors for their help on the article:

E.T. forever! Alientraveller 08:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ET's voice

I can`t seem to find a reference to ET's voice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krazykenny (talk • contribs) 03:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

So don't add it without a reliable source. Alientraveller 09:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
But isn't that a thing that shouldn't be missing from a film article? Especially considering this is a featured one.KeNNy 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Of the reliable sources, only Premiere says "maybe" regarding Pat Walsh. That isn't good enough. Alientraveller 14:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDb also says itKeNNy 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But IMDb is user-contributed. Alientraveller 08:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, sound designer Ben Burtt discusses Pat Welsh being the voice of ET on the DVD audiocommentary for Return of the Jedi. Can't we consider that a reliable source? (Note though that Pat Welsh is not Pat Walsh).
Some sites also list Debra Winger as having contributed some bits and pieces of ET's lines [and so (sort of) does her Wikipedia article], but I'm having trouble finding the sources and/or judging their reliability. --Agropio 16:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] product placement in article

Is it a standard practice to identify brands and put links to them? Product placement is annoying enough in a film, but unless the brand is central to the plot (which it isn't) I don't see the point of naming reese's pieces or coors. I wouldn't want to see wikipedia as a marketing tool in this way. What is the opinion on this one? Paul haynes 13:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Alientraveller 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am talking about product placement, a type of advertising in which a company pays for its product to be shown/used in a film. In the article there is a link to two commercial products (reese's pieces and coors beer). THE PROBLEM - an example - in Fight Club they smash a store that sells computers as part of project mayhem. The fact that they are Apple computers is irrelevant BUT you can manipulate the wikipedia entry for Fight Club to mention apple computers, linking it to the apple computer wiki, which then mentions fight club saying something like "apple computers appear in cult films such as I Robot, Fight Club," etc. with links back top these pages to legitimise such a claim. WHY would anyone do this? Well, its a type of viral marketing, used to raise the profile of the product (just as WHY would a company pay to have Tom Cruise drink Coke in minority Report?) and while this type of spam isn't a problem at the moment for Wikipedia, if it becomes a convention in such cases as Coors and Reese'e pieces in the E.T. page, it could be. MY VIEW IS only have links to products where the product is central to the plot. MY QUESTION TO YOU - Is it central to the plot that ET drinks Coors beer, OR that he drinks beer?
WHY do I have this view? well, its irritating to read and seems as manipulating as other forms of spam AND this is an award-winning page. Sorry if it wasn't clear what I meant. I would been interested in hearing people's points of view on this. Paul haynes 15:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, it's just beer. You really seem to be riled easily just because you see a real-life drink or sweet in a film. Alientraveller 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it is just a beer - so why mention which one and put it as a link? My point is that I see a real life drink and sweet in the (otherwise excellent) Wikipedia page for no (encylcopedic) reason. I'm riled about product placement IN THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE not the film. You don't mention what type of bike he uses, yet this is as important as which beer he drinks (i.e. not at all) BUT if you think someone would find it useful to know which brand of beer it is, and maybe want to find more information on Coors beer, then keep the link. If not, it is better to remove it. Paul haynes 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this commercial spam looks ridiculous in an otherwise good article. The Reese's Piece's sentence is mildly less contentious -- since it mentions an interesting piece of trivia, but the Coors sentence is totally out of line. Should WikiPedia also list what brands of shoes and clothes he was wearing? What about the makes and models of various cars seen in the movie? Seriously, why does this article actually need to promote Coors beer, when it has absolutely no significance to the movie? If the fact that Coors appears in the movie is interesting at all, then say why and cite it. Rov4416444 06:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who played E.T.?

I heard that someone played him and lived in Youngstown. Who is this?

[edit] Spielberg's earnings

Editor2008 (talk · contribs) feels that the earnings Spielberg got from E.T. are irrelevant to the article. However, this is what the director spent his daily half-a-million dollars on, so ergo, it is relevant in my eyes. Any third party wish to comment? Alientraveller (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant unless someone can demonstrate it has something to do with the film besides the incidental fact that it was Spielberg's pay from the film. Otherwise, the logical extension of the argument could lead to listing the personal spendings of every director from earnings for every movie (e.g., cars, homes, clothes, artwork, expensive home appliances and gadgets, etc.). Ward3001 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
So where would you put it? I'm thinking maybe the Citizen Kane article or Spielberg's own personal life section... Alientraveller (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's the cite: Deborah Caulfield. "Citizen Spielberg's Purchase", New York Times, 1982-06-13.  Alientraveller (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it should go anywhere, but if it does, my personal opinion would be in the Spielberg article. Possibly a brief mention of the sled prop in the Citizen Kane article. Ward3001 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)