Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 18 October 2013

	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 Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 31, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Core / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is on the project's core list. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Library of Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Booker, M. Keith (2006). "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial". Alternate Americas: Science Fiction Film and American Culture. Praeger. pp. 157–170. ISBN 0275983951.
• Sragow, Mike (2004). "Steven Spielberg on E.T.". In Rickman, Gregg (ed.). The Science Fiction Film Reader. Limelight Editions. pp. 254–260. ISBN 0879109947.

Untitled

The California wildfires of August 2009 came close to the home where the movie was shot. Any update as to whether the home received any damage? 22yearswothanks (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead needs work

The lead for this article, and the article in general, could be greatly improved. In the lead, there could be some more general information about gross revenue, rank among top-grossing films (both outright and adjusted for inflation), awards won, place in Spielberg's career and more. I will open this up for discussion first before I make changes. Please post actual content here and we will hopefully come to a consensus and get it into the lead. ET is one of the most influential movies of all time; it deserves an excellent wiki article. Dougmac7 (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't understand a word of that. If you think the article isn't an WP:FA, please nominate it for a WP:FAR. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarify and expand remark at editor request: I feel the presumption for how the article stands now goes to the other 1116 editors that got the article to FA status. See the edit stats for an indication of the work already accomplished. I'm not finding an argument for "greatly improved" in any of what's written. Having scanned the article as an editor I see one minor improvement: The Academy Awards nominations and wins have somehow gotten de-emphasized over the years, and I think may deserve re-emphasis. This criticism largely came about because of the footer of the article which does not mention them, making the info hard to find.

When speaking to the idea of "greatly improved" and the first idea given is "we need to say more about how Hollywood made a bundle off the film", I tend to react negatively: The art, not the money made, should be the emphasis in my opinion. (Note on my comments: I have not seen the movie in question; I do tend to use this article and a few other FA articles as a "benchmark" for writing about fictional subjects on Misplaced Pages.)

An FA tends to go into maintenance mode, and it is admitted that WP:FAR's are required sometimes because an article can go downhill, or the FA standards have changed: I'm not thrilled with the current FA standards, as they seem to mandate every lead be a WP:TLDR. I think the lead here is "right-sized" and I enjoy the article greatly. Most edits to the article now, as opposed to in its history (link goes to original August 2002 version of the article), seem to involve reverting unsourced assertions about ET's alternate sexual preference. It's not that unusual, the "Hamlet" article has the exact same sourcing issue on the exact same point. But I've got to compliment User:Baseball Bugs for this recent edit to the article, the editor knocked it out of the ballpark. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration

ET shares many themes with the 1956 British movie "Supersonic Saucer", in which "a group of school children at a boarding school spot a flying saucer and then soon meet a diminutive being from Venus. The alien, whom the kids name "Meba", communicates with the children by telepathy. Bad guys who were planning to steal valuables from the school safe try to kidnap "Meba" to make use of his remarkable abilities, but the children fight the bad guys and keep their friend "Meba" out of the hands of the crooks. The bad guys are rounded up with "Meba"s help at the end. There is one scene where one of the children takes "Meba" for a ride on her bike just as in E.T." -Jim Riecken, IMDB.com76.70.119.149 (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What are ETs qualities?

Please help us come up with some of ETs Qualities comparing him to alf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.18.199 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What's stopping you from doing it? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alf, the "alien life form" TV series? why compare E.T. to Alf? is Alf considered to be influenced by E.T.? in which way would the comparison of E.T. to Alf be relevant to the article? (roman e./germany) --84.154.71.153 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Influence on popular culture

In my personal experience, E.T. was the film that kicked off the BMX cycling hype. Everyone about my age (~11 at that time) wanted to have a BMX bike as a direct effect of watching the film. Kuwahara manufactured a BMX bicycle that we used to call "Kuwahara E.T.", which might have also been the actual model name. IIRC the bike at least looked (maybe in fact was) identical to the one used in the film by the main character. - can anyone confirm this experience? got some reference? worth adding to the article? (roman e./germany) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.71.153 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside of Misplaced Pages you could probably write a - short - essay on ET's cultural impact. It was hugely popular, but even at the time the film was generally perceived as a slightly retro one-off; moreso nowadays. It showed that there were big bucks to be made from family-friendly films, and made the video nasties seem even more unsavoury, unfortunately so in the case of John Carpenter's contemporaneous The Thing, but other than that you'll struggle to tie it in with pop culture in the 80s and subsequently. It was the golden child, the outlier, the Jesus. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Original Screenplay

The original screenplay E.T. apparently was plagiarized from a screenplay written by a young teenager in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was originally titled Pi (algebraic pi) as the alien was named. It was written by Johnny Colafrancesco and submitted to a little known producer at the time. He received a letter stating a movie could be made if he provided an amount of money in the 6 figure range. The letter also stated he would relinquish ownership of the screenplay after 7 years if he did not provide the funds. An original copy of the manuscript is kept by a lawyer with the name of Bob Hays and safely locked away in his safe in Birmingham, Alabama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.92.202 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reference in Google News Search or Google Books Search mentioning a Colafrancesco in relation to this film. We would need to verify this claim with a reliable source. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Alien

Anyone else think it's a bit odd that an encyclopedic article on the film E.T. doesn't contain a single clear picture of the alien itself? It's frequently invoked in the article, and there's even a section where the alien's appearance is said to have deterred Mars from condoning the use of M&Ms, but nobody, upon reading this article, would really know what the alien looked like. Not condoning the use of pictures willy-nilly - they're just there to illustrate the text, in the end - but I'd say that this is an aspect of the film that would very much be worth illustrating. Robdwebster (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:ETbuckleup.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ETbuckleup.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Misplaced Pages, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It or He?

Cleverly, the article avoids giving ET - the character - a gender. It's all "ET does this" and "ET does that" rather than "he does this" and "he does that", so kudos to whoever wrote that bit. Perhaps it was unintentional, but I like to imagine that at least one of the people who contributes to Misplaced Pages is as clever as me. But the section about the sequel novel in Other Portrayals section is more problematic; the text talks about "its attempts to return to Earth" and "its planet". Is ET an it? Technically I suppose he doesn't have a cock, at least not that we get to see, and so concepts of gender don't apply, but it seems stilted and autistic. This must have been gone over before, what was the outcome? I could easily rewrite it as e.g. "ET attempts to return home, in the process violating the laws of his planet" - I could do that in my sleep but I like to post to talk pages like this because it boosts my public profile. Ten minutes from now I will probably make the necessary edits anyway, so don't expend too much effort replying. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. In fact, the plot synopsis includes many instances of "he"/"him"/"his" that refer to E.T., and several instances of "it" and "its". Rewording the entire plot synopsis to remove all of the foregoing would almost surely yield an extremely stilted result. I think the first thing to do is to research and see if we can make an authoritative determination on whether "he" or "it" is correct. I'd say the most important sources would be the screenplay, followed by any statements by its author (Mathison), followed by any any statements by Spielberg. DocKino (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

fond this on IMDB.com

Steven Spielberg stated in an interview that E.T. was a plant-like creature, and neither male or female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.238.246 (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

imaginary friends and other stories of imagination

call me a skeptic but there are certain things I hear that quite simply don't have the ring of truth to me, and it's from a perspective that I would categorize as "Occam's razor". Do I believe that it's more likely that a successful celebrity movie director dug deep into his childhood memories and came up with "new old" material to collaborate and merge with a stalled science fiction project (as this article says), or do I do I believe it is perhaps more likely that a successful and sophisticated celebrity movie director with an army of trained advisors and having experienced some previous very large Hollywood projects found it a more simply defended position against anticipated claims (be they spurious or not) of plagiarism and intellectual propery theft to recall interior memories that could predate most competing claims on a simplistic and hackneyed story for children? From my perspective, this article should say that "Spielberg says" or "Spielberg claims", unless there is some corroborating evidence for that story. Without evidence, somebody saying something about themselves is "original research", and it does not harm the story (and in this case Spielberg) to simply say "Spielberg says...". And while we're at it, just to help you form a perspective on what I'm saying, do we really think it's more likely that Steve Jobs sat in on a university class about calligraphy (original research with no records of course registration), or that the Apple Lisa and Macintosh more likely simply incorporated the typography features of Xerox's WYSIWYG computer systems that Jobs had seen. 96.224.42.141 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

External Link: Nocturnal Fears - dead

Does someone want to take out the external link for Nocturnal Fears? It forwards to something called pitchfest, and is not the sequal treatment it refers to. --Photoactivist (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

E.T. 2

the is no talk about the planed but naver made "E.T. 2 The Return" in it E.t.s real name is known E.T. people are also seen in the new Star Wars moives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.114.238.246 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

John Landis

John Landis plays a role in the movie. He is one of the doctors "tending" to E.T.--Ron John (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's plausible, but he's not listed in the credits at IMDB, and their editors usually have this kind of trivia covered. What's your source? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial → E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial – Seemed to be, a more precise name name for film; (based on film poster) as The Extra-Terrestrial is a subtitle to the main movie name, E.T.. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 15:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Using the film poster solely as the basis for this move proposal to add the colon punctuation mark is insufficient, IMO, when even the official web page from Universal Studios Home Entertainment (http://www.universalstudiosentertainment.com/et-the-extra-terrestrial/) does not use the colon. Some recent reliable sources do not use the colon either. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as-is. What matters is what's on the screen, not what some bit of publicity has. For example, the title of Superman "The Movie" in 1978 is actually just plain Superman. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A poster is not a good basis at all for determining a film's "true" name. As Bugs says, "What matters is what's on the screen." DocKino (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Amazon, Rovi allmovie, Britannica, and Movies in American History: An Encyclopedia. Did the screen title have a comma? I am hoping no one knows the answer to that. Kauffner (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I should point out that my "oppose" is based on the standard set by Leonard Maltin in his annual movie guide, which goes by what's on-screen rather than what someone thinks is "should be". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Maltin is flexible. He gives both "E.T.--The Extra-Terrestial" and "E.T. The Extra-Terrestial". Kauffner (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; movie posters are not a good source. Powers 21:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • As it happens, in this case it is, in that the style and font used in the poster match what I indicated below as the way it's presented on-screen. No colon, no hyphen, no dash. Just 2 separate lines. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Addition of colon (:) doesn't look nice, especially after the period. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

DVD

I have the "20th anniversary edition", which has both the original theatrical release and the tinkered-with version. Here's how the beginning unfolds:

• Universal Pictures logo appears
• "E.T." in large letters fades in
• "The Extra-Terrestial" in smaller letters fades in - all caps, E and T somewhat larger than the others
• "The Extra-Terrestrial" fades out
• "E.T." fades out
• Other credits appear individually, fading in and then fading out

←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Actors with the E. T. costume

Tamara De Treaux, Pat Bilon and Matthew De Meritt were ACTORS and belongs to the CAST, not to the Development section. E.T. without the players was not possible. And the Link to Pat Bilon Misplaced Pages site is not working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.12.54 (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar to something I wanted to write on this Talk page. In the Cast section, the second to last paragraph is about the voice work for E.T. The film is called E.T., so maybe that second to last paragraph should be moved up a bit. Also, the actors are mission completely. Tamara De Treaux, Pat Bilon and Matthew DeMeritt. Maybe even mention Caprice Roth who filled prosthetics to play E.T.'s hands. Or maybe a link to the Development section or move all that stuff into the Cast section as IP user 74.66.12.54 suggests. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe even include a low quality image of the three actors with the E.T. animatronic. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Was there not something of a controversy over the film-makers implying in all publicity that “E.T.” was an animatronic, and refusing to acknowledge the rôle which the actors played in performing the character? Wasn’t it a reason Armistead Maupin wrote “Maybe the Moon”? Jock123 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class film articles
• FA-Class core film articles
• WikiProject Film core articles
• FA-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• Core film articles supported by the American cinema task force
• WikiProject Film articles
• FA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Low-importance American cinema articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class Library of Congress articles
• Low-importance Library of Congress articles
• WikiProject Library of Congress articles
• FA-Class science fiction articles
• High-importance science fiction articles
• WikiProject Science Fiction articles