Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

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.

Controversy Of E.T. being inspired from Satyajit Ray's The Alien (unproduced film)

The film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is said to have been inspired form Satyajit Ray's The Alien.

Stayajit Ray claimed that Steven Spielberg's film "would not have been possible without my script of The Alien being available throughout America in mimeographed copies." When the issue was raised by the press, Spielberg denied any plagiarism by saying, "I was a kid in high school when this script was circulating in Hollywood." (Star Weekend Magazine disputed Spielberg's claim, pointing out that he had graduated from high school in 1965 and began his career as a director in Hollywood in 1969).

The Times of India noted that E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) had "remarkable parallels" with The Alien. These parallels include the physical nature of the alien. In his screenplay, which Ray wrote entirely in English, he described the alien as "a cross between a gnome and a famished refugee child: large head, spindly limbs, a lean torso. Is it male or female or neuter? We don't know. What its form basically conveys is a kind of ethereal innocence, and it is difficult to associate either great evil or great power with it; yet a feeling of eeriness is there because of the resemblance to a sickly human child."

--Rohan Deb Sarkar (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a claim worth giving more space to. You can try adding it yourself and see what other editors think. Or you can use the {{edit request}} template. This not an appropriate use of the {{help}} template. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll note that the 3rd ref does not make an reference to Ray's proposed film or script, but compares Spielberg's film with a later Bollywood film that has components that can be considered comparable. It is therefore not a supporting reference for the statement it is attached to.

So is this proposed addition in line with UNDUE? Claims in Hollywood that some film has taken ideas from some earlier work are commonplace. Ray's claim that E.T. "would not have been possible" is just a claim (and, here, cited to a university newsletter source). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

You can check the following Wikipedia articles which give proper view of the similarities between E.T. and Ray's The Alien along with proper citations:-

1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyajit_Ray#Career

2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_works_of_Satyajit_Ray#Bankubabur_Bandhu

3.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alien_(unproduced_film)

And also, Star Weekend Magazine disputed Spielberg's claim, pointing out that he had graduated from high school in 1965 and began his career as a director in Hollywood in 1969.

I would request you to take the above evidences into account.--Rohan Deb Sarkar (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You have provided the Wikipedia articles' names, but what you need to provide is whatever references the claims in those articles use that support the claim being added to this article. Also, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make to this article (should your request eventually be approved) you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  20:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Unofficial copy of E. T. in Bollywood by Rakesh Roshan for Koi Mil Gaya film.

I suggest to create a section - Remake or unofficial remakes of E.T . In India a famous director, producer copied E.T. and made a film - Koi Mil Gaya and he didn't gave credit to Steven Spilberg. He didn't purchased copyright form Steven Spilberg.he made thousands of dollars from that film the film started by Bollywood's famous actor Hritik Roshan just take a look of that article and you will understand how that man copied E.T. Kundan Ravindra Dhayade (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Empathic connection starts before frog scene

The plot synopsis states that the empathic connection between ET and Elliot is first experienced when the alien is watching TV and Elliot is in science class. However, this connection was already established, though subtly, in the scene in the bedroom wherein we see ET's eyes blinking slowly as if he's sleepy and Elliot yawning and falling asleep on a chair. One might also say the connection was probably instant and first demonstrated by the mimicking of movements in the aforementioned scene.

Can we say something like that the connection was alluded to in these earlier scenes but most obviously manifest in the iconic science class anarchy scene? TheArcane03 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The term "alien" (alienation of the subject of the term) is offensive. Stop reverting this article to discriminatory language.

The term "alien", applying alienation to the subject, is culturally insensitive.

The matter of extraterrestrial life is fully established here:

Available Congressional Testimony - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DrcG7VGgQU&list=PLaQ1pzuoBvRNUTej2z9PX7Uoh3tNyZZz0&index=1&t=1s

Big Picture Elaboration - https://tubitv.com/movies/560916/unacknowledged-an-expos-of-the-world-s-greatest-secret / https://tubitv.com/movies/560920/close-encounters-of-the-fifth-kind-contact-has-begun

Extended Big Picture Elaboration - https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Truth-Forbidden-Steven-Greer-ebook/dp/B00CXY0G8C/

Additional References:

https://siriusdisclosure.com/expeditions/preparing/suggested-reading-list/

https://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Self-Discovery-Consciousness-Psychotherapy-Transpersonal/dp/0887065414

https://www.amazon.com/Center-Cyclone-Autobiography-Inner-Space/dp/099858018X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6pXZB2za40&t=1s

https://www.authorkarenfrazier.com/about.html#/ / https://www.ourgreatestgood.com/messages-for-our-greatest-good/who-is-the-george-collective

Extraterrestrial testimony of the offensive nature of the term "alien":

- https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/843097997223186432
- https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/989650592082444288
- https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/706425433105936385
- https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/656195850834612224
- https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/654439813404188672
- https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/825680442669961216
- https://twitter.com/SandiaWisdom/status/656459922847088640

The term "Universe" is synonymous with unity. Cosmic etiquette would address those originating from other star systems as our cosmic family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.223.163 (talk • contribs) 15:00, February 24, 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no guidelines to prefer one word over the other in common use. I do not see a compelling reason to require "extraterrestrial" based on the above argument. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Britannica uses the word "alien" without issue here, for example. Also, please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Changes like this needs a WP:CONSENSUS, and if editors are reverting you, then there is likely not one in your favor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The duration between when I posted this concern, and when it was contended to be non-persuasive was less than 1/3 of the time duration of just the first linked citation, let alone the others, let alone an allowance for contemplation. The timestamps above are a sufficient basis to find the opposite argument invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.223.163 (talk • contribs) 04:43, February 25, 2021 (UTC)

I am certainly open to the possibility that extra-terrestrials exist. However, I am not open to rejecting the term "alien" based on a Twitter account from an alleged extra-terrestrial. Timefurtherout (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. You can be bold with an edit, but you need to discuss if it gets reverted. The above links are not reliable sources to use to determine a consensus. In contrast, I see sources rejecting "alien" in regard to illegal immigration. That kind of thing can drive a discussion, but there is nothing similar here to apply to this topic and similar topics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The above links to me establish:

- Extraterrestrials are real, and pervasive, powerful efforts have been concealing the situation.

- Extraterrestrials recognize the term "alien" (meaning alienation of them) as offensive.

The counter-arguments do not address these points. A legitimate reversion should properly address the issue of the initial edit, and I do not believe that this has been the case. Even if one wants to neglect the abundance of evidence that extraterrestrials are real (which should not be done), the feasibility of extraterrestrials being real demands that humanity's front door not have a sign that communicates "We're alienating you." The Wikipedia terms of service call for civility, not the alienation of entities with which the subject is so unfamiliar that they don't even necessarily consider them real. A civil world view requires an open mind, not alienation of the unknown. (Even though there is an abundance of evidence that it can be known, and that it is filled with tremendous love.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.223.163 (talk • contribs) 21:34, February 27, 2021 (UTC)

The word "alien" is perjorative and is rejected as a derogatory slur in the slang ways it is used today including as a label for undocumented immigrants. The term should not be applied as a label for benevolent beings such as the one depicted in this movie. In fact, popular culture predominantly uses this term in reference to hostile or malevolent beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:9400:8aa0:3fb:c1a6:5ff9:d16:3f21 (talk • contribs) 02:11, February 28, 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if a better place to address this issue is Search for extraterrestrial intelligence. That seems to be the main Wikipedia article about whether extraterrestrials are real. It appears to contradict your assertion that the issue is settled. And it uses the term "alien" numerous times. Timefurtherout (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who believes in God or any other higher being who is not situated on Earth believes in an extraterrestrial. Anyone who believes in prayer believes in telepathy. So the majority of the world population already believes in extraterrestrials, though not necessarily amidst the use of that term (https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/). The title "search for extraterrestrial life" is obfuscating, as addressed by the presented citations, and correspondingly unproductive. Yet the point at hand, as explained now by multiple individuals, is that engaging in a stance of alienation is by definition offensive. Pervasive offensiveness, even if unintended, is not justification for its continuation. A stance of etiquette to the cosmos, rather than blanket alienation, is the matter at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.223.163 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is too metaphysical for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia summarizes others, and as long as "alien" and "extraterrestrial" are used interchangeably by reliable sources, there is no direct indication from the world at large that Wikipedia should narrow the language to just "extraterrestrial" in common use like for this film. Meanwhile, there is discussion about language in reference to other characteristics, which Wikipedia uses to update its approach. If the time comes where there is off-Wikipedia discussion about preferring "extraterrestrial" exclusively over "alien", then Wikipedia can consider such discussion. Wikipedia does not lead the way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The cited off-Wikipedia sources address the metaphysical nature of reality, whether comfortable or not, as well as the matter of rightminded disposition toward extraterrestrial life, and the manner by which "reliable" leading influencers are corrupted in their stances on this matter. My understanding is that it is Wikipedia's policy to consider presented research, and not to engage in needlessly insensitive language.

As it has now been nearly 2 years since my last statement above was posted without rebuttal, I again call for the removal of the offensive term "alien" (short for a bigoted stance of default "alienation" toward our extraterrestrial family).

The family's name

The article states Thompson as the family name, but the Washington Post's review states Taylor, which is as I recall it on the original release. Plenty of other sources (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) corroborate this name, also. If the name has verifiably changed in a recent edit of the film, then this should also be mentioned in the article. EP111 (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Cast

Should those who were inside ET be considered the cast? Take Pat Bilon for example, who was inside ET for most of the film.... Nauseous Man (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues with this featured article

I hate to do this, but this FA is showing its age.

• The lead is too short.
• The cast section is mostly unsourced.
  • Also maybe add one or two images to that section.
• There may also be some issues regarding comprehensiveness.

**One thing missing is that Richard Attenborough said that ET should have won Best Picture.

• There is also inconsistency in reference formatting.

This is a notice before a potential FAR: hopefully these can be addressed. ~ HAL333 01:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a raccoon character?

The section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial#Cast mentions a raccoon character. But the plot synopsis doesn't, nor can I find any mention of one when Google searching Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's one of the teenage boys. ~ HAL333 21:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, HAL. What makes you think so? The actor who is credited as playing "Raccoon" Frank Welker would have been 36 years old at the time the movie was made. You think he played a teenager? That's a big age difference. Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point... That's really why this article needs better sourcing. IMDb doesn't list any role, and it wasn't present when this article was promoted to FA. ~ HAL333 14:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

After a little digging, apparently Walker voiced ET in a 1984 episode of Muppet Babies. He also appears to have had voice cameos in many Speilberg films. ~ HAL333 18:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, HAL. Well, going through the article history, I see the Frank Welker/Raccoon edit was made by an IP address without a talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial&diff=prev&oldid=1023044282. I suppose I'll remove the edit and see if anyone does anything with/about the removal. Greg Dahlen (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That was the right move. The closest I can figure is that Welker may have contributed to ET's voice: 18 people supposedly contributed and they apparently used raccoon recordings as well. (Or it's just an IP screwing around as usual.) But until a source is found that can support it, best if it isn't included. Cheers. ~ HAL333 18:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Free fire

Free fire babe nahi ho cahiye 2409:4064:4D0E:4462:0:0:7708:590D (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

E.T

What does Michael tell the psychiatrist about Elliot and e.Tf connection 84.203.68.233 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Botanists

The Plot section describes the aliens a bit too clearly as "botanists". It's true that they appear to collect plant samples, and the main character has the power to revitalize withering flowers. But he has some other unusual powers, too, and we don't know what else did the aliens plan to do. So is it really so clear-cut that "botanists" is what they are?

I'd just write "Aliens secretly visit Earth" and not "Alien botanists". Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Separate page for the Title character

Should E.T. (the character) get his own Main page, seeing that he is an Iconic and beloved character in Pop culture.

A draft was already made:Draft:E.T. (character) 211.30.192.205 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The fly-by Moon scene

This scene is one of the most memorable and magical in movie history. Nate-Dawg921 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi..._Mil_Gaya

Hindi Remake 2003 as Koi Mil Gaya Akkaassh Ranjan SIngh (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)