Template talk:Steven Spielberg

message: Why isn't Duel (1971 film) included?--Jeff79 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So, why is Duel (film) again in the See also section instead of the 70s? --Gamgee (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Duel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of non-theatrical work 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Production credits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Production credits section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of MoH games... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Writing credits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Directorial works (L.A. 2017, Something Evil, Duel) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Home movies, early shorts, non-“Duel” TV stuff