| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Fabelmans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The Fabelmans is currently a Film good article nominee. Nominated by HM2021 (talk) at 19:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: 2022 film by Steven Spielberg |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph of Steven Spielberg, Tony Kushner and the cast on the stage of the Princess of Wales Theater during the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2022 or of Spielberg and Gabriel LaBelle at the London premiere be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Growing Up
editWay 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
editJust 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?
editWe 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
editHM2021, 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"
editSo, 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)
"When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit!" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit! has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 15 § When the horizon's at the bottom, it's interesting. When the horizon's at the top, it's interesting. When the horizon's in the middle, it's boring as shit! until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Just a note that this article appears very well written and I think could deserve a WP:GAN or WP:FA nom :) @HM2021: Would you be interested? Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm definitely interested. This film really does need some attention and it deserves the nomination. HM2021 (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @HM2021: Sounds good! I think the nomination should come from you, as you have done most of the work on the article. See WP:GAN/I#Nominating. I would be happy to provide an initial review after the nom (lots of work stuff going on this week, so probably sometime this weekend). Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)