Talk:The Perks of Being a Wallflower (film)

Release date

Can someone please change the release date? Its coming out on the 21 only in NY and LA. Then on the 28 its opening in more cities. http://perks-of-being-a-wallflower.com/theaters.html 192.101.80.14 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Eric

Casting

Can someone add sources for the cast? It keeps appearing that Johnny Simmons is playing Michael, but in the book he died when he was 12, so this cannot be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GroovyandPears (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The movie doesn't have to be faithful to the book.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that Simmons is in the film,[1][2] but I don't see one that states his role yet. dissolve^talk 17:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

IMDb says that Simmons is playing Michael. IMDb is not considered a reliable source for trivia and biographical information, but generally it is more accurate for cast, etc. However, because the role is being challenged, I have no problem removing it until we can find a more acceptable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I heard he was playing Brad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.115.2 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Plot

Can somebody please rewrite the plot section? It needs to be MUCH less opinionated and needs to be less 'casual.'

Could someone source the plot? False changes that are different to the official synopsis keep being made, making it false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GroovyandPears (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the stuff in the Plot section needs a source. I'll remove the Plot section entirely. If you (or someone else) can find a source for the movie plot (not the book plot), we can put it in with the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary is taken word for word from IMDd, making it a copyright violation. It needs to be reworded in order to be free content. dissolve^talk 17:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Already removed as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I provided a new write-up based on a synopsis from ComingSoon.net. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been written awfully by someone who doesn't have a proper grasp of English language or grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.42.252.4 (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to say that reading the plot to this movie was one of the most annoying and boring things I've ever had to do. --blm07 06:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about people get off their bottoms and rewrite it/correct the grammar and copyright violations. If indeed they are violations, dont forget that IMDB is also edited by the public like Wikipedia and so perhaps they have in fact perhaps copy/pasted off of here. As for the above user, that belongs in a forum, not an article talk page. If you could perhaps provide more detail as to what was annoying and boring about it, then perhaps as users we can come up with a suitable edit suggestions. MisterShiney ✉ 09:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The user that reverted my edits should have done more than read up to the word 'poignant' and decide he/she didn't like that word and revert my entire edit. There are other factual problems with the plot which I have to verify before I change. For example, I am fairly certain that the father didn't find Brad and Patrick having sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perlygatekeeper (talk • contribs) 17:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Poignant" is an issue, not the only issue. Even before your expansion the plot summary is over 100 words beyond the guideline at WP:FILMPLOT. If anything the summary should be reduced in length, not expanded. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The plot section of the page makes grammatical sense and flows. There are no significant sections of the plot that are missing from the page. Algburt (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Reception

Whoever added the reception section did not bother to properly reference anything they quoted. (They probably only skimmed the summaries on Rotten Tomatoes, which is lazy and bordering on plagiarism. When you have the sources in front of you it is much easier to add them than to expect others to look them up and add them later.) I repeat the material below so it can be readded by any diligent and conscientious editor but the material has been unreferenced for over a month, and I would much prefere to encourage any editor who is interested to take a look at the reviews and -- with proper references -- add what they think is most appropriate rather than fix another editors half finished effort, that relies heavily on just two unreferenced reviews. -- 109.77.40.121 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced material follows

Ian Buckwalter of The Atlantic said "The primary trio of actors delivers outstanding performances, starting with Watson, who sheds the memory of a decade playing Hermione in the Harry Potter series with an about-face as a flirtatious but insecure free spirit. Miller also plays against his most recent performance, which was as the tightly wound titular teenage psychopath in We Need to Talk About Kevin, to deliver a giddy, scene-stealing turn as Patrick. Lerman, best known from the Percy Jackson series, shines as Charlie, a role that demands he be immediately likeable while still holding onto some deep darkness that can't be fully revealed until the end."

John Anderson of Newsday complimented the cast by saying "As Sam, the quasi-bad girl trying to reinvent herself before college, she (Emma Watson) brings honesty and a lack of cliche to a character who might have been a standard-issue student. But equally fine are her co-stars: Ezra Miller, who plays the gay character Patrick as something messy and unusual; Paul Rudd, as their English teacher, is refreshingly thoughtful. And Charlie is portrayed by Lerman as quietly observant, yearning and delicate in a way that will click with audiences regardless of age".

Or you could not be just as lazy and do it yourself? Be bold!!! MisterShiney ✉ 07:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I might rewrite it. I'm definitely not fixing what was there. -- 109.77.189.133 (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Google search

Could someone somehow change the date for the google search?

When you search the movie up on Google, it comes up as The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2013). The movie was released in 2012.

I would do this myself, but I don't know how.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss04 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Development

This section is badly composed. There is no mention that John Hughes died suddenly while writing the screenplay. The Next paragraph added concerns the authors reaction to some aspects the the movie that was later completed before going back to explain who took on the project after Hughes didn't complete it. There is a reference to Hughes "heirs" but no reference to what happened to him.

This passage would be more clearer if it was organised in chronological order. Detailing the original project, the reason for the abandonment, the decisions taken to bring the movie to the screen and finally the authors reaction to the finished material. --86.165.245.45 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the entire paragraph talking about mental illness as I could not really find a way it connected at all with the production of the movie. It would better be suited for the Stephen Chbosky page or even the novel's page, but I don't see the relevance here. --Deathawk (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Year its set in.

How do we know what year the film is set in? 81.156.162.21 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a legitimate question. Possibly the novel features the year (own it but haven't read it), but even if it does, that wouldn't guarantee that the film is set in the same time period. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse

"Charlie passes out as they burst through the door and wakes up in a hospital, where psychiatrist Dr. Burton (Joan Cusack) manages to bring out Charlie's repressed memories of his aunt sexually abusing him."

This is not explicit and must be inferred.

I can find no explicit mention of sexual abuse in the movie. ---Dagme (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:SOFIXIT, but what would you suggest as an alternative? DonIago (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Charlie passes out as they burst through the door and wakes up in a hospital, where psychiatrist Dr. Burton (Joan Cusack) manages to bring out Charlie's repressed memories of his aunt sexually abusing him." could be changed to ""Charlie passes out as they burst through the door and wakes up in a hospital, where THE DIALOGUE SUGGESTS THAT psychiatrist Dr. Burton (Joan Cusack) manages to bring out Charlie's repressed memories of his aunt sexually abusing him." or something similar. However, I'll leave it to somebody else to make such an edit. ---Dagme (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Intro citation

The second paragraph of the intro states, "Chbosky had always intended to adapt the novel to film, but did not rush to do so" ("but took his time," before my edit). I checked the next sources cited, and none of them back this up. If I knew how to do so properly, I'd add a [citation needed] to this, but I'm pretty new to Wiki editing. Would this be an appropriate case to do so? And if so, could somebody add it in/teach me how to?

Thanks, FS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.102.12 (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation of Better Sources

Better sources, such as peer-reviewed articles or scholarly books can be included in the article for a more in-depth analysis of the film. ALTHOYA (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)