Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial/Archive 2

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

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.
 * 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
 * Bignole
 * Erik
 * DocKino
 * EEMeltonIV
 * Calliopjen1

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).
 * 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) Can't you just wrap it up and say there are sources indicating both of them? The return of the jedi seems like a good source to me, just say there is doubt over iff she did all of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.51 (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Spielberg's earnings
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: 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)

Music
does any one know if there is a page for the music in the film? hornplayer2 (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Surprised
I am surprised that there is not an actual articles on E.T. himself. He is one of the most recognisable and iconic extraterrestrials in film history and culture. I think there should be an article on E.T. and not just the film he is in. Evilgidgit (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, create one. It's wikipedia.

Theme
I was watching the film lately, and I noticed that apart from the mother no adult's face is shown till the man tells Elliot he cares about E.T. too. I wondered: could this have anything to do with the absence of a father(and his search for one)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.51 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but as described in the production section, Spielberg explained he was tributing old cartoons which never showed adult faces. Alientraveller (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Do you think we should note that more clearly? I can't really find it explicitly said under production.

E.T. and Star Wars
I just added info regarding E.T.'s appearance in the film and novelization of The Phantom Menace, which was then removed. I also received a vandalism warning for my addition. Why? I wrote nothing that was untrue--E.T.'s species ***is*** in The Phantom Menace, and their home planet, Brodo Asagi (first named in the novel E.T.: The Green Planet), ***is*** identified in the Phantom Menace novelization. Why was this removed, and why would my adding it be grounds for my being banned from Wikipedia? That's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.210.59 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not ridiculous, just Wikipedia policy. The threshold for inclusion is Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. You did not provide a citation that the E.T. species is in The Phantom Menace. And you received the warning because of a history of your IP address engaging in vandalism, inappropriately removing content, and adding unsourced information or original research. I would have simply pointed out the verifiability problem without a warning if this had been the first time you engaged in bad editing practices, but it clearly wasn't. When you get warnings, please read and follow the policies identified in the blue links and you can avoid this kind of thing happening. If you did not actually make the previous inappropriate edits, then you need to register and edit under your username rather than an anonymous IP in order to avoid the warnings. Ward3001 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the information. However, it's not like the Phantom Menace connection is something new--it's been common knowledge since 1999, when E.T.'s people clearly appeared onscreen. Saying their presence in the film is unverified is like saying R2-D2's presence is unverified--both appear onscreen, so both are in the film. In any case, I ***did*** provide verification: the Phantom Menace novelization, which identifies the species' homeworld as Brodo Asagi, which is E.T.'s homeworld, according to Kotzwinkle's E.T. novel--that was his way of acknowledging the E.T. connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.210.59 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I respect what you're saying and am not trying argue with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.210.59 (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the calm discussion. This information has been added and removed a number of times in the past, so it is not really commonly accepted knowledge. The so-called E.T. species' appearance is too brief to be considered common knowledge, and pulling in a source that has nothing to do with the film itself is stretching things. You would need confirmation from George Lucas to truly verify that the E.T. species is in The Phantom Menace. Also, you need to provide more specific citation information; see WP:CITE. If you want to make a case for including the information, do so here in more detail, including citations. Wait for discussion and see if a consensus emerges. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article about E.T.'s connection to Star Wars: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Children_of_the_Green_Planet -- As you can see, Lucas inserted E.T. in there as a thank-you to Spielberg for including Yoda in the film E.T. The aliens' senator, Grebleips, is even "Spielberg" spelled backwards. But the best evidence is on this page: http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/galacticsenate/ -- which is the official Lucasfilm website, starwars.com. If you scroll down to the bottom, you'll see that it says, "One of Episode I's most popular Easter eggs can be found during the Senate sequences. Joining the chants of 'vote now' is a Senate platform bearing three representatives from the same alien species as the title character of Steven Spielberg's E.T. -- The Extra Terrestrial." This entry, as with most of the starwars.com databank, is written by Pablo Hidalgo, who runs starwars.com and has written a ton of materials for Lucasfilm's licensed Star Wars universe. --Sincerely, Rich Handley, Lucasfilm writer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rassmguy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to include my sig.Rassmguy (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's some more info on this subject: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Brodo_Asogi Rassmguy (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Spielberg actually write the E.T. sequel? Or merely give permission for it to be written?
I recall reading in a recently released book about Spielberg that he didn't actually write the sequel, but instead his original idea for the E.T. film was modified and used as the basis for a sequel, and was then later modified again into the film Poltergeist. Someone may want to verify and alter the the section that says Spielberg wrote the script for the sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.40.119 (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Poltergeist was the sister film to E.T. and released around the same time, so I'm not sure how that latter rumour would work out. But Spielberg and Mathison's treatment for the sequel was very different from what became the sequel novel. It's worth finding a cite for whether Spielberg approved of the book or not. Alientraveller (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

E.T. in Star Wars
(copied from User talk:Baseball Bugs

There is an E.T. in one of the Star Wars'' prequels. That IP address said it was Star Wars I, but I'm not totally sure that's correct. I'm thinking it was II. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)''
 * No, it was I. It wasn't E.T. himself, as such, it was a group of E.T.-like creatures. A typical inside-reference for Lucas, such as putting R2-D2 and C-3PO on the wall of the Well of Souls in Raiders of the Lost Ark, or putting variations on TXH 1138 in practically every film with his stamp on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've known that for a long time. If you'll notice, the reason I reverted is that it was not sourced. This information has been added to the E.T. article dozens of times, but no one ever sources it. And I'm not going to do the sourcing for someone else too lazy to do it. (By the way, the Nitpicker source is not a reliable source because anyone can add information and it has no editorial control. But let's not get into another endless debate again. If you wish to take this up further, please do it on the E.T. talk page.). Ward3001 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The film itself is the source. If an on-screen fact is unambiguous, no other source is required. So, the only question is, is it clear that there are E.T.-like creatures in the Imperial Senate chamber? Or is there some ambiguity about it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's in contrast to the Star Wars characters on the walls in Raiders, for example. It's not visible on-screen, it's only known because it was discussed in the "making of" book. So the film can't be a source for that. But if the E.T.-clones are clear and unambiguous in Star Wars I, then no external citation is required. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I told you, I'm not playing your game of endless debates any more. This discussion has been copied to the E.T. talk page. Take it up there instead of my talk page. Ward3001 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the one that keeps deleting it despite being aware of it, so you have a responsibility to answer this question: Is the evidence for the E.T.-like creatures clear and unambiguous on-screen? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has now both answered my question and found a citation: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Revised citation: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

odd phrase removed
I removed this odd phrase: "while Vincent Canby of The New York Times criticized it for "freely recycl[ing] elements from [...] Peter Pan and The Wizard of Oz"." from the reception section. Canby was not criticizing the film for this (in fact, the line before, he states that E.T. "may become a children's classic of the space age"). He was merely pointing out the fact that E.T. was a pastiche of some of the best of timeless children's works. 140.247.133.138 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)