Talk:Contact (1997 American film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleContact (1997 American film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2009Good article nomineeListed

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Wessel, Kari (2004). "Alien Encounters: Science Fiction and the Mysterium in 2001, Solaris, and Contact". In Rickman, Gregg (ed.). The Science Fiction Film Reader. Limelight Editions. pp. 181–209. ISBN 0879109947.
  • Handler, Rachel (June 29, 2022). "'No Aliens, No Spaceships, No Invasion of Earth' An oral history of Contact, the sci-fi movie that defied Hollywood norms and made it big anyway". Vulture. Retrieved July 22, 2022.

Unanswered questions[edit]

As a reader, I wanted to know more about several things: 1) The editing by Arthur Schmidt is superb, and it really makes the film work. What kind of input did Schmidt have in the process? Or, does he just edit at the direction of Zemeckis? Is it collaborative? I'm curious about the production methods, and the filming section seems a bit short for any future FAC. 2) The Bill Clinton and CNN controversy seems like a homage to The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), as that film used real journalists to give it added authenticity. However, when I saw Contact during its initial release, I and many others that saw it at the time were very surprised to see the President in the film, so it may have had the intended effect. 3) Coppola's lawsuit doesn't make any sense. He must have known (or his attorneys must have known) that the case would go nowhere after waiting two decades since the book was originally published. Suing a dead man? It just doesn't add up and the whole thing is just completely bizarre. It would help to get Coppola's take on the incident. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, Sagan wasn't likely to be inconvenienced in any way personally by Coppola's lawsuit. What needs to be kept in mind in this case is that one's estate (assets) persists even after one has passed to the Great Beyond. Coppola was suing Carl Sagan's estate on Sagan's behalf, with the Estate being held accountable to pay reparations for whatever torts Sagan may have perpetrated while he was still above ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shape of the capsule…[edit]

It seems very pedantic, and even wrong, to say that the shape of the capsule was changed from a dodecahedron to a sphere for the film; as can be seen, the pod (shown clearly when dropped, and again when it hits the water on its “return”) is a lattice-work doecahedron cage, in which the sphere sits. There may be a question of æsthetics, but it isn’t so much a change from the book as a design choice in not filling in the faces of the dodecahedron.Jock123 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Here: [1]. Mateussf (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Gunn influence[edit]

Hello, I today started reading a polish translation (from 1987) of the James E. Gunn's book "Listeners" ("Słuchacze"), which was released in the 1972 or 73. It is very similar to the story in this film. It is even to Carl Sagan (and others)! For sure film have few plots which are different, to make it more Hollywood production and having more action, but backstory, many topics, philosophical questions, background and many details are in agreement. I would like to know what people thinks about it. Gunn isn't a thirdparty author, he written many hard-science fiction books and articles about it, for sure his works was known to Sagan.--149.156.82.207 (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:talk page guidelines, we are not supposed to talk about that here. This is where we discuss the content and format of the article. Of course, if you can find a reliable source that actually explicitly says that Sagan's and Gunn's books show notable similarities, then we could add a little remark in this article. Without a source such a comment would be wp:original research. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the talk page for Contact (novel). Look at the paragraph "save Similiar Books information". Here is mentioned "Listeners" and other books. --GroveGuy (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 October 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact (film) → Contact (1997 film) – per WP:Naming conventions (films) : "Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated". Also Contact (1978 film), Contact (1992 film) and redirect Contact (2002 film). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This Contact film is clearly much more recognizable than any of those other films. A DAB note to point the main Contact disambig page is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A major film widely recognized and awarded versus two minor shorts and one minor festival. I think the major film is by far the best contender for the title. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Binksternet, User:Masem you're going against WP:Naming conventions (films) In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Titanic (1943 film), Titanic (1953 film), and Titanic (1997 film) – None of the films are the primary topic so they are all disambiguated. Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated.

Actually, the Miracle on 34th Street is the better example. One film is vastly more notable than the others. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Binksternet, please look again at WP:NCF; there is no "( )" disambiguator on WP:NCF example Miracle on 34th Street because Miracle on 34th Street does not need a "( )", because it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, wheras the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Contact would be at Contact (i.e. it has no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is a dab with Electrical contact listed).
The difference is that "Miracle on 34th Street" is not a term in e.g. electrical engineering etc., "Contact" is. Hence none of the 4 films can just be "Contact". In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting that the three Titanic films are major productions all; they were made by major companies with major figures involved. Each one is a contender for the single Titanic (film) label, but none is seen as overmatching the others, so none of them get it. In the case of Contact, there is only one major film, so it should get the Contact (film) label. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, first things first, you now agree that "Miracle on 34th Street" is in fact not a better example of a title with a (film) disambiguator than Titanic (1997 film) yes?
Secondly WP:NCF does not say anything about whether a film is a major production, it says WP:Naming conventions (films) : "Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated". If you do not agree with the guideline then the place to argue for a change in the guideline is at WT:NCF not at a RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic is a bad example as the three films are all major feature productions, and most people, if you asked "Did you see the film Titanic?" would question which one (While the James Cameron one is the most recent and probably more famous, it's just a notch more); none of those three films are the "primary topic" for "Titanic (film)". For Contact, the other films that have name conflicts are not feature films nor well known; ask "Did you see the film Contact?" and most would recognize it as this specific movie. As such Contact (this film) is the primary topic. There is a different here and why there's no need to move this. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masem, same again if you do not agree with the guideline, or even if you do not agree with the guideline's Titanic example, then the place to argue for a change in the guideline is at WT:NCF not at a RM. A look at "film Titanic" in Google Books since 2000 shows that Titanic (1997 film) is by far the best known film called Titanic, which is why it is an example in WP:NCF. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not saying the guideline is wrong, in that in this wording: "If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Wikipedia, compare all film and non-film topics and determine whether one is the primary topic. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. For the other films (or all the films, if none of them are the primary topic), add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings).", that for all films named "Contact", this one is the primary topic as it is clearly the most recognizable and the only feature-length film of the 4 given. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miracle on 34th Street is the applicable example because one version is much more famous. My interpretation of the NCF is that the first consideration is whether one of the conflicting titles satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC within the film world, not whether there is parenthetical disambiguation. Once a film is identified as being the most important film with that name, you look outside the film project to see what is the most succinct manner of naming the film. In the case of Miracle on 34th Street, there is no other topic except various films. In the case of Contact, there are social and electrical topics which can be argued as having more primacy. From that realization comes the wish for the most succinct possible disambiguator which in this case would be (film). Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCF. BOVINEBOY2008 14:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Naming conventions (films). The 1978 film was a 9-minute animated cartoon made in the Soviet Union and the 1992 film is an obscure 30 minute short. As pointed out above, the 1997 major motion picture (length 2 hrs 20 mins, box office receipts $171 million, starring well known actors and based on Sagan's novel) is the primary topic. The applicable Wikipedia guideline instructs us to "compare all film and non-film topics and determine whether one is the primary topic. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation." Thus, this article already has the correct title: Contact (film). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:AzureCitizen, User:Masem, User:Binksternet : please see in red: "compare all film and non-film topics and determine whether one is the primary topic. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation." In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing the letter and I am arguing the spirit of NCF. I remain opposed to the move request. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCF - lots of other films with this title. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCF. Partial disambiguation should not be used as it is not the only film named Contact, so Contact (film) is far too ambiguous. It also isn't the primary topic for Contact either. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, consistency over particular notability all the way. --uKER (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per WP:NCF. As everyone wrote for support to move the article name. ApprenticeFan work 10:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move 9 September 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. SMALLDETAILS is almost deliberately vague and so weight of numbers carries the day. Jenks24 (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– The requested move to rename the South Korean film as just "The Contact" ended with no consensus, but I still feel it's possible, and straightforward, to distinguish between "Contact" and "The Contact" with just the years. Unreal7 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per the reasons brought up on the South Korean page move. If this film was the primary topic, it would be at Contact, but it needs the extra disambig due to film titles having the same title (with or without the "The" prefix), per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of the consensus reached at the prior move request above. There's far too many topics named "contact" or "the contact" to specialize this for the film arena. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the aboves ; -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Word change[edit]

The introductory segment of the article states that the "release of Contact was publicized by controversies...", which I think should probably be "plagued" rather than "publicized", unless the controversies mentioned were part of a deliberate marketing campaign strategy - unlikely.

Changing this as suggested, unless anyone can show that the use of the original is justified.

Extenebris (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an accurate summary of the article to me. Good work! Rebbing 01:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Previous RM ended Not moved. This RM seems borderline that, but what seems certain is that no consensus for a move is emerging. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contact (1997 American film) → Contact (1997 film) – Unnecessary disambiguation. 31.52.4.146 (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the move request above. Due to the South Korean "The Contact" film in 1997, we need to have the disambiguation on nationality of the film's release. ("The" is not used for distinguishing purposes). --MASEM (t) 14:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the previous request. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose other film with name. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 18:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, so the definite article is sufficient to disambiguate these two topics, but not here? What am I missing here, because your arguments in these discussion don't appear to be consistant. PC78 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I understand it, with that case, you only have two articles of issue, the film and the TV series, so one step of disambiguation is all that is necessary, and the two topics are reasonably connected. HEre, the two films are vastly different, and there's many many more articles that are about the topic "contact", so we're well into the need to disambiguate. With that need (whether it was "The Contact" or "Contact" we need to make the distiguation on the nationality of the film. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • PC78, want me to stalk your request moves? ;) Like Masem said, nationality disambiguation is needed, so not to be confused. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 06:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure I buy your arguments, to me the definite article is either sufficient to distinguish two topics or it is not, and that shouldn't leave much middle ground, but hey-ho. :) PC78 (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contact (1997 American film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contact (1997 American film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Contact (1997 American film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wormhole original research[edit]

I've been listening to a BBC podcast (Fry & Rutherford) and they said that when Carl Sagan was working on the script, he realised that if anything went through a wormhole it would be destroyed. He called his friend Kip Thorne and asked if there was a way around this, and Thorne did some work and devised a way of creating an artificial wormhole - he had to use negative mass to keep the ends open. Not many science fiction films actually prompt original research in cosmology. Does anyone have a stronger reference than the podcast to add a comment to the article? Apepper (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:
I assume this refers to the original/first screenplay which pre-dates the novel? From what I recall, the novel is quite clear that the network of wormholes is artificial.
From where I'm sitting, the podcast by Drs. Fry and Rutherford is reliable to cite what they are saying with attribution (preferably making clear where they say the info came from). - SummerPhDv2.0 17:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes they mentioned it was for the screenplay, what they didn't say was their source - although they did say Kip had written a paper describing the work; I can't find that, but he did write an article in a book edited by Carl Sagan in 1997 about using wormholes for interstellar travel - that might be what they referred to. Apepper (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contact_(1997_American_film)&oldid=1206780307"