Talk:Hawking (2004 film)

	Film portal This article 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Dubious

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The article states, unsourced: "Cumberbatch's portrayal of Hawking was the first ever portrayal of the physicist on screen." But Hawking portrayed himself (technically a hologram of himself) on Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1993. Powers ^T 11:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

An IP editor tried to source it to IMDb, but I reverted due to IMDb not being a reliable source. IMDb also was more specific, stating that Cumberbatch was the first actor to portray Hawking on-screen. While that might very well be true, it isn't the same thing as the phrasing in the article. Powers ^T 01:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here a user claims that the TIME magazine article, not visible online without paying, supports the claim. But without being able to know exactly what wording the article used, we still don't know if it contradicts the bare fact that it is not the first portrayal of Hawking on screen. What's the next step? Powers ^T 21:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Historical accuracy, compared with “The Theory of Everything”

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How does this television movie (which I've seen) compare with The Theory of Everything (which I haven't seen) when it comes to historical accuracy, and accuracy in the portrayal of people involved, in particular Stephen Hawking himself ? I added a reference to this movie in the Fred Hoyle article, and wondered if the incident actually happened as depicted (with the young Stephen Hawking confronting Fred Hoyle about a mistake in his theory among an assembly of devotees), or if it was partly fictitious, or completely made-up.--Abolibibelot (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic