Talk:SLC Punk!

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Events Upon Which The Movie Was Based

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

text: Thanks a lot --67.167.102.71 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Music name

message: 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)
thread_title: On 'tribes'

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Questionable relevance

message: 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)
thread_title: Stylistic edit

message: 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)
thread_title: Why I love Wikipedia

message: it is posEUr. --77.132.164.62 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: its a poser why people keep misspelling poseur

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sequel (Punk's Dead) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Punk's Dead page?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Material moved from article to talk page. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Release Date for the Film