Talk:SLC Punk!

RELEASE DATE FOR THE FILM: I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is listed as a 1998 film, when the Sundance premiere was well in 1999. I see "1998 Germany" listed here and on IMDB, but no reference to prove that. Does anyone know why this shouldn't be characterized as a 1999 film. I host the 90s Movies Podcast, and this is a mystery we are trying to solve. If this film should belong to 1999, then 1999 needs the credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Loup (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Events Upon Which The Movie Was Based

prior to a revision on 4:13, 27 March 2009, this section included: Some events in the movie are thought to be exaggerated. Sean Fightmaster, the supposed inspiration for the character Sean, needs to be corroborated independently, was working on a documentary to correct inaccuracies in the movie before he died December 6, 2006. No information or documentation of said documentary has ever been produced Among other things, Fightmaster maintained that Sean's acid-induced knife fight never actually occurred, although its been noted it was an important part of his myth, no proof has ever been shown.

Actually a couple of clips from the Fightmaster/Kaly documentary effort have surfaced, one is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7hmypp13xg . 24.21.189.34 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

this was removed with the explanation "(As a piece of fiction, writing about people trying to correct inaccuracies does not add anything. It is fiction.)"

A QUICK google search (no heavy research here) seems to confirm that sean fightmaster was "a punk-rock personality" (http://www.slugmag.com/article.php?id=787) in the salt lake city punk scene, and that indeed he did not like the character which was supposedly based upon him in this movie. I don't claim to be knowledgeable at all on any of these subjects (fightmaster, the punk rock scene, slc punk) but I take issue with the idea that (again) "As a piece of fiction, writing about people trying to correct inaccuracies does not add anything. It is fiction." Seeing as this was placed under the catagory of "events upon which the movie was based", this seems fairly relevant/interesting to me. As I do not generally edit wikipedia articles and am not 100 percent familiar with the protocol, I thought I would raise this issue in the talk page and barring objections might try and put this information back in there. --97.113.152.138 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And I agree, the idea that a work of fiction, especially one based on real people and real events, doesn't need to at least give a nod to reality is ludicrous. The whole film was basically stolen out of the lives of real people, and their memories are being traduced by the inaccuracies. Sean, who was a legend in his own time, has now been subsumed by Sean, a character in a movie. The real story adds another dimension to the one told in the film, and vice-versa. Willful ignorance isn't a good enough excuse, fictional Presidents still work in the White House, fictional doctors still perform surgeries, and fictional punks - especially those based on real people - will still drink all of your beer. 24.21.189.34 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

All the characters were fictionalized versions of real people some of whom were said to be negatively effected by the film (according to City Weekly's Gavin Sheehan who calls Mathew Lillard douchey in an interview in City Weekly.) Merendino is aware of some of the criticism (which is talked about in this 4 page article about the upcoming sequel: http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-413-18093-slc-punk-is-not-dead.html) I really think any of the controversy and criticisms should have a place in this wiki. There was a documentary being made about the real scene. There is a link on this talk page of Sean Fightmaster ("Sean The Beggar" in SLC Punk) commenting on how he didn't like the way he was portrayed in the film and that he wanted to re-make it. There is a Youtube page with two clips (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB8SWTyw0VI) from a documentary (made by Michael "Mike" Kaly, not Sean as previously mentioned) which mentions Heroin Bob and Steveo, also part of an interview with Sean Fightmaster. The uploader says he is editing it together but they are two years old. There is a little more about Sean and the documentary here: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5041213. If there is any more information I believe it would be worth mentioning in the wiki.76.3.140.104 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Music name

Erm, this is not very related to what the under debate is, but does anyone know the song that was playing in the background when Stevo, Bob, and Eddie go to Wyoming to get beer?--JonnyLightning 01:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Beat My Guest by Adam and the Ants.--AspirinKid 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot --67.167.102.71 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On 'tribes'

Merendino's depiction of the 'tribes' is largely his own (outsider) perspective. I don't know if the person who wrote the tribal descriptions was writing in real-world or movie-world terms, but they appear to be broken either way. Punks didn't dislike rednecks "for their conservative values", except perhaps for the part where those conservative values drove the rednecks to raid punk gigs with baseball bats and tire irons. (They also raided new-wave dance halls... come ON, new-wavers can't take a punch. Idiots.) It's a wash on the neo-Nazis (because the punks DID bring the fight to the Nazis sometimes, as they should have then and should still today), but it might be prudent to note that neo-Nazis tend to be bald jocks with attitude problems while punks tend to be accepting of whatever you are into as long as you don't force it on them. In broad terms, punks are more concerned with what they themselves are doing, while skins tend to be mostly concerned with what other people are doing, or what race/creed other people belong to. Which mindset is more likely to start the fight?

The worst offense in the 'tribe' section, though, is placing Sean in a specific 'tribe'. Sean was in all tribes, and/or was a tribe of one. 24.21.189.34 (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not know what you are taking about. Literally you have no idea.

Questionable relevance

The film includes many introspective looks at perceptions of anarchy and related schools of thought, while also exploring the punk culture and way of life. It also echoes of many other stories of oppression and coming of age, allowing many people who are not familiar with the culture to relate to the context of the film.

I must say, that sounds like complete BS. The movie didn't provide introspection into anything let alone anarchy or it's releated schools of thought. It, at most, skirted the subjects briefly before Steve launched into yet another uneducated diatribe of his beliefs.

The stories of oppression and coming of age are equally almost non-existant. What could have been an insteresting subplot of Bob's life was instead used as a filler. Steve knew no oppression, he was a spoiled kid who latched on to a rebellion culture and pretended he came from the bottom. The only moment of introspection comes when after all this time he realizes he's just as bad as the mall kids and he's the son of a rich family and that he truly was a fake whereas Bob lived the horrible life that Steve in his mind glamorized. It's handled so poorly though it seems that not many people seem to catch it when they watch the film. Instead they come out of it thinking, "Wow punk's so cool, let's go to the Hot Topic and be punks.", never realizing that the joke's on them as they set out to relive Steve's false life.--Skeev 15:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WOW. Using impeccable analytical skills and top-notch reasoning, you have carefully managed to tease from this film the ironies and fallacies that were deeply buried RIGHT ON THE SURFACE and were probably even written on the back of the DVD case. Yes, you are totally, right, the story is a story about posers because James Merendino was (might still be for all I know) a poser, and THE POINT of the film was that moment when the 'cool punk' figures out that he was just a poser too. This wasn't some deep mystery and I don't know who you are hanging out with but I don't know ANYONE who didn't "catch it"; it is explicitly SPELLED-OUT in Steve-O's closing monologue, he COMES RIGHT OUT AND SAYS IT. Congratulations, genius, on discovering the shiny rocks on the bottom of the shallow end of the pool. 24.21.189.34 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

--Actually, that's what I got from it. He ends up marrying a girl who challenges his every belief until he realizes that he's just posing as a so-called "rebel" at the sake of his own individuality. That's spelled out pretty clearly, maybe too clearly. The rich/poor contrast is an interesting side-factor, but not really the dominating one when you realize that both Stevo the rich kid and Bob the poor kid are poseurs in the end, only Bob doesn't last long enough to realize it. It's not the best movie and some aspects could've been handled a little better, but still it could provoke some thought if you're interested in the punk culture. I hope to God it didn't inspire people to be poseurs themselves, but who knows, there are stupid people out there.

-- i see this movie as a critism of punk culture. i have to agree it isnt the best movie but i still like it.

-- I wouldnt say that this is a critisism but, as he had said more of a coming of age, where we learn that Anarchy cannot exist in a democracy like America or anywhere for that matter, because without perfect people a system like that wouldnt work.

---It's apparent, that you, much like the writer/director of SLC Punk, have absolutely zero working knowledge of traditional Anarchist theory. Wiki "anarcho-syndicalism", read that, then come back. 69.165.149.75 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

-- I agree, the relevance is definitely questionable. the movie says pretty much nothing about true anarchist philosophies, it's just about the mainstream stereotypes.

--What I got from the movie is that punk was part of Stevo's youth, and that he grew up. I don't exactly believe that he was a posuer (though in some parts of the film Stevo said some "posuer-ish" things). Still, I don't think people who aren't/weren't punks can truly relate to the film.

This movie is not a documentary of punk culture. It is a story of a man's experience with the culture. I believe details of the phylosophy were left out to show that ultimatly for steve, and for most "joiners", it was not realy relovent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.147.7 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's even worse than that - the real Steve-O and Heroin Bob (who is still alive, btw) are like 7(?) years older than James Merendino, who wrote and directed the film. Merendino wasn't part of what was going on, he was like 12 at the peak of the punk scene in SLC, but he did have seats near the front rows and he was close enough to note the names and descriptions of some of the key players but not close enough to them or involved enough himself to have ANY IDEA what was driving the people whose lives he ripped off to make this somewhat-enjoyable but ultimately forgettable film. So it's a poser writing a semi-fictional account of a punk who figures out that he is a poser too... it has NOTHING to do with punk "philosophy" and everything to do with the scribbled entries in one poser bystander's journal. It doesn't even have much to say about the 'scene' in general, Merendino mostly just knew the small subset of well-off East-bench kids who were going to the U on daddy's dime... it's not like he spent any time in the crashpads. He was strictly a tourist. The only capital-T Truth exposed in the film is that as people grow up they often find that the things they thought were of supreme importance when they are young turn out to be completely irrelevant to their lives when they are older. But I will add a caveat: most of the still-living people whose lives are portrayed in the movie are still punks at heart. Which is all the 'philosophy' it takes. 24.21.189.34 (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Heroin Bob in the movie is actually based on someone named Chris Williams (who is also still alive because it is fictional after all.) According to James everyone whose name was used in the film gave their permission which they would have to in order for him to use them. Although it was said by one commenter on City Weekly that Bob did not or did not mean to give permission to use his punk name which seems possible. (https://www.facebook.com/groups/slcpunks/permalink/707147402647217/)76.3.140.104 (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Only poseurs debate who is a poseur, or what makes a poseur or a punk. There is no punk philosophy. Besides the attempts to fix the stories of the people that were fictionalized in this movie, this entire talk page is pathetic.76.3.140.104 (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Stylistic edit

SLC Punk! contributed to the early-2000s increase of interest in punk rock culture.

SLC Punk! inspired the punk revival scene.

That's what it said originally, but there's no reason for it to be two separate sentences, so I've made it into one instead: "SLC Punk! contributed to the early-2000s increase of interest in punk rock culture and inspired the punk revival scene."

I was going to say the directors reason for filming the movie was that the punk scene was still very much alive already. There is no 2000s revival scene. But whatever this bull crap has already been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeonlyjbk (talk • contribs) 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why I love Wikipedia

i just saw this movie and i thought... hey, this is stupid, those guys were actually saying that anarchy is chaos. so i think about visiting Wikipedia to see what it has to say about it, and i see that in the second sentence the word anarchist is QUOTED, i loved that.

I thought it felicitous. Skomorokh 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

its a poser why people keep misspelling poseur

it is posEUr. --77.132.164.62 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. They are almost synonyms. A "poseur" is someone who pretends to be something he or she is not. A "poser" is someone who acts differently to impress others. In effect, a poser is a sub-category of poseur. -- Charles Stover 05:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Rental

SLC Punk made $72 million in rentals? Really? That sounds high. Source? DFS (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:SLC Punk! Soundtrack.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SLC Punk! Soundtrack.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SLC Punk! Soundtrack.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sequel (Punk's Dead)

If someone feels like adding a section regarding the sequel, objects to the addition of a section regarding the sequel at this moment in time, or has anything they believe should be included in that section, speak up. You can read about the sequel on its Facebook page for more information. ⚓ nbmatt 05:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Punk's Dead page?

Anyone feel like making a main page for the sequel? I think it has enough information for it to warrant a page of it's own. Npamusic (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Material moved from article to talk page.

Here are sentences that were part of the article. I think they fit beter here on the talk page because they don't apprear to be about the film. "The reason Punk jumped from NYC to San Francisco to Salt Lake City was because Brad's father loved what he heard in NYC and started his own rough off shore punk radio station that could not be controlled by USA laws. His son, Brad, moved to SLC and used radio waves from his father's off shore station to play in the SLC station. Susan happened to move from NYC about the same time, being her Punk records with her. // How do I know all this? I was Susan's roommate. //" --Thelema12 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Release Date for the Film

I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is listed as a 1998 film, when the Sundance premiere was well in 1999. I see "1998 Germany" listed here and on IMDB, but no reference to prove that. Does anyone know why this shouldn't be characterized as a 1999 film? I host the 90s Movies Podcast, and this is a mystery we are trying to solve. If this film should belong to 1999, then 1999 needs the credit. Nicholas Loup (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)