Template talk:Steven Spielberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the American cinema task force.
 

Duel[edit]

Why isn't Duel (1971 film) included?--Jeff79 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is now Jeff79!--Jeff79 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.175.206 (talk)

It's in "See also". I don't get what the problem is with including it among all the others.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree - it should count as part of his normal filmography as the film did receive theatrical release (and had extra footage shot for this purpose). Will add it. Robsinden (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
So, why is Duel (film) again in the See also section instead of the 70s? --Gamgee (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It appears consensus here is to have duel in the 1970s section so it should be kept there unless consensus is reversed in future discussion 70.112.184.148 (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of non-theatrical work[edit]

Well? Anyone willing to tell me why this template should only be limited to "Films directed by" him? Short films and his (TV) movie debut don't belong in the Spielberg productions template. Alientraveller (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at this and thinking the same thing. There are some video games on here. Why? It's supposed to be a FILMography. 75.57.7.154 (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Duel, again[edit]

A bunch of IPs have been removing or moving Duel around, yet again. When this happens without explanation, it counts as vandalism. When it happens with a poor explanation, the answer is to simply revert. When it happens with a good explanation--don't know, haven't seen one yet. My suggestion: leave it alone. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You want my suggestion? I know some people might not like it, but, why don't we move Duel to the television section? It's a television film - and although Spielberg directed it, he refers The Sugarland Express as his first film. This is found on the Jaws Anniversary Edition DVD under "Spotlight on Location: The Making of Jaws". I know for a fact from viewing the recent history that I am not the only one who thinks Duel should not be included with the theatrical films. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 2:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think television is the appropriate section - that section is being used for television series which he had some hand in. Duel is definitely a full-length movie (regardless of how it was originally distributed) and as such is more akin to the movies in the decades sections. I know the movie originally premiered on Television in the US but I would give consideration to the fact that the movie came-out theatrically in Europe and that the only version of the movie available today is that longer 90 minute theatrical version. Regardless of what Spielberg himself's opinions may be from a factual standpoint it is a full-length stand-alone motion picture that was released theatrically - and so it has a better fit going with his other full-length pictures instead of being with TV series. 70.112.184.148 (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I have just found this interview with film producer Richard D. Zanuck, the producer of Sugarland and Jaws. He plainly states that Sugarland is Spielberg's first film. http://www.filmshaft.com/exclusive-alice-in-wonderland-richard-zanuck-interview/ - Cartoon Boy (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Sugarland may be his first feature-film that was planned to be a feature-film from day one, but the fact remains that Spielberg directed the movie Duel, and then shot additional footage for it for the express purpose of releasing it as a "feature film" overseas and in Europe. I really can't grasp why some IP editors can't accept the fact that it is a feature-length movie, that was released theatrically, and was directed by Spielberg in 1971...regardless of whether or not it was planned to be a theatrical release from the beginning. -Dwimble (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of what Spielberg or Zanuck say, there is incontrovertible evidence that Duel was directed by Spielberg three years before Sugarland Express. This is the English, not the Spielberg/Zanuck, Wikipedia and it has to present the facts, not an edited story based on ridiculous denial by individuals. As far as TV vs theatrical release is concerned, it's also the case that this is the English, not the American, Wikipedia and it is required to present a world view. The world view is that it was a theatrical release in many countries before it was released on TV, not that this is really relevant because it was a movie made in the 1970s so including it with other 1970s movies makes a world of sense, while including it in the "see also" section makes absolutely no sense at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And, again. Twice I've reverted the same change by an anon in the 176.xxx range who appears to refuse to acknowledge consensus at all. Should we seek semi-protection?oknazevad (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article found on Sugarland's article states plainly that it his feature film debut: http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-09-01/texana8 Will add more articles as I find them. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Found these as well: http://newdirectors.org/ http://www.cinemaslants.com/2011/07/summer-of-spielberg-part-1.html - Cartoon Boy (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have found more evidence: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072226/trivia

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sugarland_express/

http://www.amazon.com/Sugarland-Express-Goldie-Hawn/dp/B00028HBIE

I've found this: http://www.totalfilm.com/features/the-total-film-interview-steven-spielberg

Notice this quote from interview: "Television work followed, Spielberg blagging his way on to the Paramount lot ("I wore a suit and tie and sneaked past Scotty at the main gate!") to set up office. His talent kept him there, directing episodes of Marcus Welby, MD, supernatural chiller Something Evil and, of course, rampant-truck flick Duel.

Assured chase caper The Sugarland Express was his fully-fledged debut, but it was Jaws that chomped its way into the history books: 300 percent over-budget and besieged by technical problems, it took $470 million to become Hollywood's first summer event movie. Hit after hit followed, Spielberg's commercial sensibilities separating him from fellow '70s auteurs like Scorsese, Malick and Coppola. Not so much movie brat as studio hat." And this: http://www.cinema.com/articles/1783/catch-me-if-you-can-tom-hanks-and-steven-spielberg-interview-catch-me-if-you-can.phtml Here's the quote: "Four years later, he directed the suspenseful telefilm "Duel," which garnered both critical and audience attention. He made his feature film directorial debut on "The Sugarland Express" from a screenplay he co-wrote."

And lastly, this video link to when Spielberg excepted the AFI Life Achievement Award in 1995. Pay close attention to what he says at 4:09 - 4:15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pt0vzt6Z39I

Here's that in quotation: Spielberg: "...and just one day before I came to this event, I had just finished shooting my first feature, The Sugarland Express"..."

I hope this is enough to finally add weight to my claim. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. While it may not have been intended to be a theatrical release, the plain fact is that Duel is a feature length film that was released theatrically before The Sugarland Express. As Wikipedia reports what is, not what was meant to be, it goes with the other theatrical films.
Anyway, as it's a navbox, it's perfectly okay to leave that level of detail to the articles. oknazevad (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Production credits[edit]

There are a bunch of entries in the production credits listed as "uncredited". How does this even make sense? 92.29.59.193 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Production credits section[edit]

I think the "Production Credits" section is too large. I propose to delete those of them which are also directed by Spielberg. These ones already are in the template.--Schizodelight (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should just have the films directed by Spielberg. It is not a truly special credit to be a producer since many films will have multiple ones. I think people are more interested in what a person directed than what a person produced. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should try to pack as much relevant information regarding Spielberg's filmography into the template as possible, so I'm in favour of keeping the production credits as they are. Maybe we could compromise by making some of the individual sections collapsible? Flax5 (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Most of the so-called "production" credits were films where he was only executive producer. I have removed them, as executive producer is not a notable enough role to be included in the navbox. If we continued on this path, we could be in a position where a film with a dozen executive producers could conceivably have a dozen navboxes cluttering up the page, for what is essentially a non-creative role. All the information can be housed on the filmography page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of MoH games...[edit]

IIRC, Spielberg didn't work on MoH2010, or any of the MoH game since EALA's acquisition by EA. So, shouldn't that, MoHPA, MoHRS, MoHAA, and MoHF be removed from this template? YuriKaslov (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Writing credits[edit]

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to add a section on Spielberg's writing credits? There's already an extensive section on production credits, and writers usually play a much larger creative role than producers. Surprisingly enough, Spielberg has written only nine films in his entire career, so a 'Writing credits' section won't take up much space on the template. Flax5 (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a section to show the two films he wrote but didn't direct. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Here are my suggestions to make this template comply better with the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, plus some other ideas and navbox conventions in general:

  • Move the filmography link to the "above" field. This is the convention for articles that are split-outs from the main article, ie that would have been ordinary sections if they had been shorter.
  • Delink the decades, since the "decade in film" articles don't/shouldn't have this template at the bottom.
  • Remove all television credits except Amazing Stories and High Incident, for which he is credited as "Creator". This is granted that the credits are correct and he is the proper creator and not just an executive producer. I'm not an expert here so I assume the Wikipedia articles are correct. If separate articles are created for the episodes he directed for TV series, those individual episodes can be added to the template.
  • Split the video games section into its own template. The games' connection to the films is weak, and fails number three at WP:NAVBOX: "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent". In the new template, apply the same principle as for the TV shows: only include games where Spielberg was the proper creator or director.
  • Redo the groups for directed films and base them on Spielberg's actual career instead of decades. Right now the earliest films are hidden away in the see also group; more suitable would be to have a subgroup specifically for the early films. The biographical articles further groups his career into the periods 1975-93 and 1994-present, which is a lot less arbitrary than the current groups.
  • To tighten up the navbox further, info such as additional credits and release years can be removed. The navigational template is not an infobox, its purpose is only to provide links between related articles. Information can be found in the filmography or the film articles themselves.

I would like to hear your views on these suggestions, and whether I can implement them or not without being reverted. Thanks! Smetanahue (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do a good job, but my personal preference is to include the years in the navboxes. I agree the TV section needs looking at, as I'm sure there's some tenuous stuff in there. And I'd be inclined not to include his home-made film and his unfinished film in the main filmography. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I created a page in my userspace where I tested my suggestions, see here. I think it looks a lot mory tidy, serious and useful than the current template. I can see the reason to put the unfinished movie somewhere else, though several other navboxes include unfinished films, for example {{Josef von Sternberg}}. {{Alejandro Jodorowsky}} has a separate section for them, though that seems unnecessary when there is only one to include. But I see no reason to exclude the early own-produced films, they're films by Spielberg and they have their own Wikipedia articles. Smetanahue (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I like that. The 1974 split satisfies my concerns regarding the early films. Not sure how to deal with Poltergeist though, given that he wrote and produced... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the years should stay in the navbox. At a single glance, they can convey a lot of context, and give the reader a very good impression of the overall trajectory of the director's career. Transferring this responsibility to the group names isn't satisfying, since it requires the reader to stop, count the years, and compare the three periods to get the same overall impression offered by the current navbox. Splitting them in this way is fine for the in-depth discussion on the Steven Spielberg article, but I think the navbox should be stricter and more to-the-point. Separating the films into eleven-, nineteen- and seventeen-year periods just feels uneven – most readers won't have a clue why they're segregated in that way. Yes, grouping them by decade is highly arbitrary, but I still think we need some sort of standardisation across these templates, and neat, intuitive ten-year rows for every director seems like a good option. If the years take up too much space, the problem could still be countered by making them small.
I agree with moving the filmography link to the "above" field and de-linking the decades. Splitting the video games into a new navbox would be fine (though I don't really see the need, since they only take up a line or two). If we do take that route, perhaps we could also split the TV series into a navbox of their own, rather than eliminating all but two of them? —Flax5 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that he was only executive producer on a lot of the TV shows, or only directed one or two episodes, it would be pointless to have a navbox just for that, or to even include them in a navbox, unless there are articles for the individual episodes he directed. Otherwise a TV series with a couple of hundred episodes and, say, fifty directors could end up with fifty navboxes, one for each director. Take Columbo for example. How many different directors do you think worked on that show? --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I made an alternative version with release years, here. To be honest I just think it looks cluttered. The only thing they accomplish is to make the navbox larger. There's also the issue of upcoming films with unknown release, and complicated release years due to late-year festivals, limited runs etc. Most navboxes have no extra info, just titles of articles they navigate between.
I also have to question the claim that decade groups are a navbox standard. The layout is always adjusted to what works best in each case. Many film director navboxes have groups for feature films and short films, {{The Beatles albums}} has groups for studio albums and live albums, and {{Shakespeare}} has groups for different genres. In Spielberg's case there is no obvious element that divides the filmography into different groups, but a split of some sort is still helpful to avoid that the text becomes too compact. Basing the groups on Spielberg's career isn't only more logical but also more practical than decades, since it gives groups that are fewer and of more appropriate size. An alternative would be to have two decades for each group (60s-70s, 80s-90s, 00s-10s) but that would be just as arbitrary. The uneven group size exists when you go by decades as well, but isn't a problem as long as no group grows too big, or ends up with only one or two entries. Smetanahue (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, and I can't argue with the fact that removing the years makes the template less cluttered – I'm just not sure it's a trade-off worth making, for the reasons I've discussed above.
My point wasn't that some groups are larger than others, but that the groups you've suggested cover uneven periods, ranging from eleven years to nineteen. Grouping by decade seems more intuitive. I think it's fine for a group to have only one or two entries, since it shows at a glance that the director wasn't very active during that decade – a relevant piece of information when considering their career.
Sorry if I'm being a little too resistant to change here, but these navboxes have generally followed the decades-with-release-years format for as long as I can remember, and few readers (or editors) seem to be troubled by it. —Flax5 16:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
My take is that while career-based groups don't say much to those unfamiliar with the career, decade groups can be directly misleading. Luis Buñuel, for example, directed movies 1929-33, had a period when he directed nothing, and then became very active from 1947. {{Luis Buñuel Films}} would represent this poorly if it had groups for the 20s, 30s and 40s. In Spielberg's case the cut-offs in the biographical article are for when he became a household name with Jaws, and later when he started DreamWorks. My version doesn't explain the details, but readers can still see that his career took a new turn with the release of Jaws, while nothing in particular happened at the turns of the decades. I suspect the decade structure is the reason that Spielberg's early films have been hidden at the bottom in the current version; editors intuitively think it's wrong to have them in the same group as films like Jaws and Close Encounters. So why not just embrace that.
I also still disagree that decade groups and release years are norms if you look at navboxes at large. Yes, they have been common in film-related boxes for several years now, but that isn't in itself a reason to reject alternatives. (History: years were added to Spielberg's template in April 2007, decade groups in February 2008. None of the changes was preceded by a discussion.) Smetanahue (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I like the idea of the career being split by periods. It seems less arbitrary than the decades, and I like that the shorts and unfinished films, etc., are in a "pre-fame" section almost. I did wonder about the point of second split, but see now that this relates to the Dreamworks period. Makes sense to me, though I can understand the resistance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The reason for the second split is really just to avoid getting a too large group. This seems to be the least arbitrary cut-off that is around the middle of the "fame period". It's also the split point used in the main article (I assume for the same reason), so someone who wonders what happened between those years can go there easily and read about it. Smetanahue (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was, I didn't see the reason at first, but now I do I agree with it :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestions that seem to be uncontroversial. I didn't change the group structure or remove the realease years, video games or executive producer credits in the television section. I also didn't move the early films up to the rest. Smetanahue (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I preferred your other suggestions :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Me too, but there hasn't been much response. I think I'll try to add one or two of the other suggestions soon and see what happens. Those who might oppose will hopefully be more eager to discuss then. Smetanahue (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Those TV shows need to go, and I still think this is the way we should be going. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I strongly object. You think Spielberg had more to do with High Incident (1996-1997) than any other TV show, apart from Amazing Stories (1985-1987), and that only those two should be listed? Based on what? You're just making this up based on your own beliefs, like your campaign against listing exec producers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
As I've said, I'm not an expert on his TV credits; I'm not sure exactly what a "Creator" credit implies. What I do know is that Spielberg is a name that many companies like to attach to projects he didn't really have an active role in, because the audience associate him with a certain matinée sensibility that helps the sales. Other credits are due to the involvement of companies associated with or owned by Spielberg. But the navbox is for movies, not marketing campaigns, and the companies have their own navboxes when appropriate, such as {{Warner Bros. animation and comics}} and {{DreamWorks animated films}}.
I'm also highly skeptical about the "plain" producer credits, but there it's more difficult to know where to draw the line. (With the possible exception of Fievel Goes West, they all seem to be made by proper, distinguished directors, and not the submissive studio directors that typically are the sign of an auteur producer.) Smetanahue (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest you don't edit or delete entries that you admit you don't know the details of? Your impression of his involvement is just that, an impression. Not an encyclopedic fact. I know from interviews he was as involved as a producer could be expected to be on a number of these shows, particularly with the sci-fi series. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't suggest for the creator credits to be removed, for the very reason that I don't know the details. As for executive producer credits there is no doubt due to the very nature of the role. If you have sources which say that he in fact wasn't only executive producer for certain films but also wrote or directed them, then those movies could be added as uncredited writer or director credits. But never as executive producer credits, because it's not a creative role. Smetanahue (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I am so tired of this. People continue with this fiction that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". They make statements like no doubt due to the very nature of the role - it's not a creative role, using words like never. What's your source for that? Sure, it happens, but not all the time. For you to say never just reflects your own bias. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If the executive producer does other things, it's because he steps into other roles. I'm sure that's not unusual especially on small productions, but the very part of the work that is the executive producer role is non-creative. In the case of Spielberg his name is notorious as a marketing token, so there needs to be evidence of his de facto role as writer or director for it to be included.
I'd also like to point out the importance of prominence in the creative contribution. We do not for example include second unit directors or script consultants in navboxes, and those roles have far more creative weight than that of an executive producer. If an executive producer goes beyond his credited role and does one of those things, it's still not enough for an inclusion. Smetanahue (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. You clearly have no idea how things work. You talk as if there's some magic line one cannot cross unless they write or direct. If only that were true, but it's not. There's all sorts of cases of producers and exec producers getting involved in the creative side. Most obviously, if they order a script to be steered in a certain direction, that overall decision is much more important than anything a second unit director does. Not to mention casting, budget, locations, sometimes even the look of the film (unfortunately).
But it's very hard to talk to someone so entrenched in their prejudices. I'm tired of debating people who make these emphatic declarations when they have no foundation. I'm done for the night. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Script steering - script consultants don't get navboxes (unless it's due to budget, then it's just non-creative); casting - casting directors (no navboxes); budget - non-creative; locations - location scouts (no navboxes), director intrusion (depends on extent), budget issue (non-creative); look - director intrusion, production design and cinematography (no navboxes). Unless executives intrude so much on the director or writer role that it can be counted as a full uncredited role, then they have got nothing to do with navboxes. Smetanahue (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

1-Person Consensus[edit]

A couple weeks ago, a user named Rob Sinden raised an issue on the WikiProjectFilm boards regarding exec producer credits. Here’s the link here: [1]. The results of the discussion were either inconclusive or negative. Either way, there was no clear agreement as to whether to adopt his proposal, and he was its only supporter. The other contributors were either ambivalent or negative. Yet he implemented it anyway despite a clear lack of consensus. He simply declared it w/o actually having achieved it. As I’m not a regular, I don’t keep up with the day-to-day activities of this article, but when I viewed it about three weeks ago, I thought the changes odd and reverted them. They were reverted back, but I didn’t notice as I’d moved onto other things until today. The main editors seem to be Sinden, who insists upon enforcing his 1-man consensus, and Marnette D, an administrator notorious for harrassing and stalking editors who disagree with her. Marnette has even gone so far as to single-handedly reverse consensus on Duel, as previously established in this talk page (personally, I agree that it shouldn’t be counted, but going with consensus here). Now I believe that the exec producer credits should be counted as Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Gremlins are as integral and important to Spielberg’s legacy as Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. I will not make any further edits to this page until a definitive consensus is reached here, on this page. 67.234.68.198 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for consensus, read other users input in the link you mention, also here, look at the history of this page, and see all the comments in the section above. You'll notice that it's not just me that thinks this. Also note that Spielberg's involvement in Back to the Future was purely financial, as with most executive producer roles. Just because you believe that they are important, doesn't make it so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You will also want to read the WP:NPA policies before commenting further. Your accusations are also full of mistakes. I am not an admin, I have no notoriety for the items you mention - oh and you have the gender wrong as well. Per the links Robsinden has provided a consensus currently exists. Rob I apologize for missing the earlier conversations on Duel I made my edit based on the fact that it was originally a made for TV film (I can still remember the house my folks lived in when I watched it that first time) and the we usually base things on the format a show was first released in. I have no problem with the move back to the 1970s section based on the conversations above. Indeed that is how consensus works. MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


“Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing.” “Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing.” ”Then what do we do with them? They are part of his career, and navboxes cover all career aspects, but since that doesn't apply anymore, what becomes of them?” Clear nay vote by RAP.
“To be fair, these navboxes are there to identify creative authorship. Actors can have creative input in films too, and we don't include a navbox for every actor whoever ad-libbed a line. The production designer probably had more creative input than Spielberg in the executive producer capacity. According to Robert Zemeckis, Spielberg didn't interfere at all on Back to the Future; a lot of the time—especially in the 80s—Spielberg would act as an executive producer for his friends just so they could get their movies made. It's important for Wikipedia to not get caught in the fame game; the issue is really the creative authorship of the film.” “Personally I think the Spielberg filmography is fine as it is, I wouldn't want to see data fragmented just for the sake of it. With the filmography, each column is sortable, so if you want his director credits it can be sorted that way, same with his producer credits, and if you want to view all his credits for a particular film they are all there on one row. In truth I think the editing decisions for filmographies are best left to the individual article editors; they are restricted to the article the filmography is on, it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles.” Ambivalence by Betty Logan.
“Aren't navboxes meant to highlight important links related to their topic? If you're going to have something as bloated as Spielbergs navbox, you might as well just replace all of that with a link to his filmography.” Ambivalence from darkwarriorblake.
“Making the argument that executive producers do not provide creative input belies the fact that individual films have unique histories and stories. Making the statement Lucas doesn't have any producer roles?? that alone fails as a statement as he is renown for his involvement as an executive producer, including Red Tails which extended far beyond just being a money man, he actually took up the reins as a second unit director. FWiW, individual articles have to be treated in isolation and left to the authors/editors that have made thoughtful and relevant submissions.” “As a general statement, that might be true as executive producers usually are backroom people, but folks like Lucas as notorious "tinkerers" that just have to get `involved. His role in Red Tails was so complex as both creator, originally screenwriter and then personally financing the production that it stands out as a unique role, and again, I did not contribute the original note or infobox, but am confident that a reasonable "exception" can be made to retain a mention in the infobox for the casual reader.” “Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance" and even in [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film , there is a clarifying statement/premise that "All parameters are optional".] The particular article already has an extensive background as to the role Lucas played, but that isn't the question. I feel that it is an issue of removing content where it matters, disregarding that the original contribution was a reasonable "exception" and follows WP:Bold, rather than a, dare I say it, "drive by" reversion.” “Not that an exception should be made for "who they are" but for "what they did" in individual films should lead to consideration of the actual contribution of an individual to the creative element of a film. How that appears should be relevant to the reader and the case that infoboxes are there for a "at the glance" type of information is one possible solution. Take a look at Red Tails now to see my out-of-the-box solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC). As to the assertion that "consensus was that no executive producers should be included" is not at all what was the jist of the arguments. In reading through the "strings", it is evident that many editors made the case for allowing individual and unique situations to be identified in the infobox when an executive producer made a substantial or significant contribution to the production.” “Even making a clarifying note to the reader is not acceptable? What became of AGF editing?” “Sorry, the outdents are an affectation that resulted from my involvement in "circle jerk" arguments. The issue, however, should not come down to an editwar which was precipitously being created. The reader actually does not have a full or complete picture of the role of George Lucas in Red Tails which may end up being a last effort of the ubiquitous filmmaker in the creative process. FWiW, the need for concise and "to-the-point" editing is the flag behind which I am fighting.” “This convoluted discourse has now devolved into an examination of the role of the executive producer, and I am now questioning the "consensus" that is being bandied about. Isn't a consensus derived when all parties to a solution agree to the decision, rather than one adherent taking/making a statement that consensus has been reached? Perhaps further elaboration and discussion is required?” Clear nay by Bzuk.
“People continue with this fiction that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". Not all Executive Producers are stereotypical managers or lawyers or studio heads whose credit is questionable. As I explained at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21#Executive Producers producer credits are not specific anymore at all. They have come to mean very different things on different films. It is now not at all unusual for the line producer to be given the title of Executive Producer, while the initiating producer takes the "Produced by" credit. But on other projects, including all Lucasfilm productions, the reverse happens, with the line producer taking the "Produced by" credit. So the two credits have become effectively interchangeable, with no precise definition. As an example from a less famous person, Robert L. Rosen was John Frankenheimer's line producer on six films. On the first, French Connection II, he got "Produced by" credit. On the second, Black Sunday in 1977, he got "Executive Producer" credit, even though he did the same job. (For what it's worth, I think he and others should have objected -- that switching the then-common meaning of the two titles was not a good thing.) The two credits became increasingly interchangeable on feature films ever since.
The infobox is supposed to accurately reflect who made the film. When if comes to the Producer category, the most important criterion is not a strict telling of who got the "Produced by" title, but who actually initiated the film and oversaw it - this guy is the effective principal producer, whatever title he actually got. He should be listed for the article to be accurate.
I agree with Bzuk that Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance", and that is why I believe instances like Lucas should be included.” “You came in and declared consensus was achieved - based on the false belief that there's a hard and inviolable difference between Producers and Executive Producers. I could show many examples of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable.” Clear nay by Gothicfilm.
Actually, you’re right. Consensus was achieved. Restore the exec producer credits, as that WAS the consensus. 67.234.68.198 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
As of now, I’m recusing myself from this discussion, and I’d advise RobSinden and MarnetteD to do so, as well. Let this be an objective debate about the worthiness of the changes rather than an ego-clash. I’m sure there’s a WP: something for what I’m suggesting, but I don’t quite know the terminilogy 67.234.68.198 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually you do not have the right to demand what other editors do and you certainly can't cut editors out of a discussion especially when you have posted a wall of text that needs some examination. Next, consensus is not a vote. Next, in your cut and pasting you have cherrypicked different conversations that went took place on different pages at different times and, thus at a minimum, have lost their context. Some of the conversations also bounce back and forth between "Infoboxes" and "navboxes" which are two different things. The "votes" that you tallied by Gothicfilm and Bzuk are only about infoboxes. BettyLogan - for which you took two different statements that were responding to different comments and then spliced them together so that the context is lost, states that the "filmography" is fine and her last sentence "it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles" which might indicate that she doesn't want it cluttered up, though you should ask her for clarification. Darkwarriorblake would seem to be stating that he does not want the navbox bloated which is hardly ambivalent, though again you should ask him to clarify the statement. In fact all of the editors that you mention should be informed of this conversation so that they can comment on how you have used their words. Your failure to indicate when and where these conversations took place is disingenuous at best and in no way can it be considered a consensus. MarnetteD | Talk 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I stand by what I said in the section quoted above, and you guys have no valid argument to the points I made there. And I was talking about navboxes in my last posting on this. They are usually collapsed on the bottom of the page, so they're not like infoboxes. You declare consensus and continue to talk about how exec producers never have any creative role, that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". This not based on any consistent facts, just your own beliefs. I have given examples that show how that is untrue, and I could give many more of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable. But you don't care. Exec producers are to be removed no matter what under your dictates, despite the fact that clearly not everyone agrees with what you're doing here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Directorial works (L.A. 2017, Something Evil, Duel)[edit]

An appendix to my suggestions above, related but a separate discussion. I've noticed three works in Spielberg's filmography that highlight what's unfortunate with the current template structure. First there is L.A. 2017, a 76-minute, standalone episode of The Name of the Game. It is currently missing from the navbox entirely. Then there is Something Evil, a TV movie of similar length to L.A. 2017, however not an entry of a series, but a fully separate production. It's currently in the see also section. And finally Duel, which has been discussed earlier, and as a result of that discussion is included in the "films directed" group. Duel was originally intended for TV only, but was eventually also released on the big screen. As I see it, there is no clear line between these three movies, and it would be more appropriate to have them listed together, not only because they are films of roughly the same production model, but also because they represent the same phase of Spielberg's directing career. I suggest we rename the "films directed" group to the broader "directorial works", and include everything Spielberg directed, regarless of exhibition medium. This also includes the other early films currently hidden in the see also section. At the same time, the ambiguous "Television" group can be renamed "Created for TV" to make clear that none of those entries was directed by Spielberg. Smetanahue (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is where it gets tricky. I wondered if Template:Quentin Tarantino would give any ideas, knowing that he directed an episode of CSI called "Grave Danger", but that's just lumped in with "other work". Again, I think your earlier suggestion of a pre-1974 section would solve the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll rename the groups and move the early works to the rest, let's see what happens. Flax5 opposed the career-based groups earlier, we'll see about that. Smetanahue (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Created by" is a writing credit. It is given to the writers of the original story a production is based on. So you cannot rename the "Television" group "Created for TV" as that is quite inaccurate, and it doesn't make it clear that none of those entries were directed by Spielberg either, as they're obviously not mutually exclusive. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think would be a better name? What I meant is that just "Television" might be read as directed for television, so something more precise would be desirable. Smetanahue (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
And while you're here Gothic, what do you think of the idea of a group for the pre-Jaws films instead of decade groups? Smetanahue (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
First I should point out that the first four of the "Television" group entries actually did have Spielberg-directed episodes. So there's no precise way to further name the section without breaking it down, as it has different types included. Spielberg was not a producer at all on the first three. Just leave it as "Television". As for pre-Jaws films, again, they're different types, one a feature, one a TV movie released theatrically in Europe, etc. A grouping of pre-Jaws films seems arbitrary and unencyclopedic to me - my main objection being surely The Sugarland Express should remain grouped with the early features. I'm not a big fan of decade grouping, but often it does seem the best option, including here. I don't mind listing Duel with the features. I certainly didn't like seeing it shoved down into the "See also" section. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I removed the series for which he only directed episodes (also removed a book which I don't know what it was doing there). You said earlier that he is credited as executive in some of the series, but actually had other uncredited roles as well. Could you point out which ones so I can remove the rest? I looked at a few but couldn't find anything about it in the articles, but I didn't go through all of them, and if it's just missing from the WP articles it should be added. Smetanahue (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
High Incident, Amazing Stories and apparently Invasion America seem to be more than just executive producer roles, but it's hard to know his involvement in some of the cartoons, where his name was used above the title as a big draw. I'd assume that his name is included because the programmes were made by his studio, nothing more. In the absence of any information that he was more than just an executive producer, then these should be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
My first instinct was also to have a group for early non-features, but one of the self-financed movies is in fact a feature. My concerns are A that his early films are perceived in a radically different way than the rest, and B that there are currently many small groups for no reason, but there are too many titles for just one big group to be appropriate. Using the same cutoffs as in the article gives handily sized groups and it's easy for readers to look up how the cutoffs make sense. Smetanahue (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, the relevant articles - if they exist - can be added to the appropriate groups when sourced info has been added to their articles. I'll remove those with only executive producer credits. Smetanahue (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Home movies, early shorts, non-“Duel” TV stuff[edit]

A few weeks ago, efforts were made to remove the executive producer credits on Steven Spielberg’s template as being cruft. That’s debatable, but fair enough. Strangely, though, this resulted in tons of cruft being added to the directorial section. I can’t name a single other director’s template that includes home movies, early shorts, and early television work in the main body of work. Duel is a major enough film that it seems to be the exception. When looking at the templates for other notable directors, such as Stanley Kubrick, George Lucas, or Martin Scorsese, you’ll find that such work is put into its own section. Or look at Francis Ford Coppola’s template. If we were to apply the same rule to that, we’d have to include his early porno film, Tonight for Sure, in the same section as The Godfather. I think we should either put it into its own section, as with the Kubrick, Lucas, and Scorsese templates, or simply remove the stuff from the template altogether, as with the Coppola template. The works implicated in this are: Firelight, Slipstream (which was never even finished according to its Wiki page), Amblin', L.A. 2017 (should the Boardwalk Empire pilot be in Scorsese’s template), and Something Evil. 67.234.116.131 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)