Talk:The Fabelmans

Growing Up
Way back before I was born, Spielberg talked about a film project called 'Growing Up', which was intended to be shot after Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but was abandoned when pre-production of 1941 became overwhelming. Growing Up was purported to have been a semi-autobiographical story about Spielberg's growing up in Arizona. Any chance this is that very project, revived some 43 years later? I can not find any citations to back it up at this stage.Robbmonster (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo of Gabriel LaBelle
Just thought that I think for the casting section, we need to add a photo of Gabriel LaBelle (he plays the main character Sammy Fabelman, based on Spielberg himself) to the table where the images of Michelle, Paul and Seth are, since he is the lead actor of the film. Can anyone find any current image of him suitable for usage on Wikipedia so he can be added in, or if anyone who is a photographer who is a user on Wiki Commons who's going to the TIFF premiere on Saturday that they provide a photo of him from the event? Maybe one of the whole cast on the red carpet or on the stage with Spielberg at the podium introducing the film? If so, it would be appreciated.HM2021 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone know the date that this movie wrapped filming?
We need to fill in this detail so that the "filming" section of this article does not have unnecessary "holes" in it. Nmchandran1 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Article issues
, I noticed you keep trying to insert a critical reception summary into the lead. Per WP:FILMLEAD, "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources." There are no sources cited in the article that I've seen supporting this summary statement. What source(s) are you tying this to?Also, the plot section should be less than 700 words (see WP:FILMPLOT). I haven't seen the film yet, but someone with knowledge should work on trimming that down. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently "acclaims" speak louder than "box office"
So, because the movie got acclaims it only "underperformed." But if it hadn't received any acclaims it would be a "box office bomb"? Talk about double standards and hypocrisy. How 'bout some standardized consistency. 2600:8800:395:B000:29D5:1B81:3B8F:3E99 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What's your point?? The article is very clear. It underperformed at the box office compared to other Spielberg films. That's an objective fact determined by revenue. It received critical acclaim. The two concepts are distinctly different. Critics can love a film even if it doesn't make much money. Sundayclose (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)