Talk:Superbad

"Misuse" of God's/Jesus' name

Any mention of this totally doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The "misuse" can be debated as well because a lot of people don't even consider it an offensive word to begin with. If put back into the article, it should be mentioned that SOME people COULD find it offensive, and if so, the section needs to be reworked so that it addresses that as well as other words and how they are used. 169.229.81.159 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories 6 through 9

As of now, the elaborations on 'Positive Elements', 'Spiritual Content', 'Violent Content', and 'Crude or Profane Language' seem fairly out of place in regard to this article and seems far more suited for a website reflecting the point of view of any of a number of watchdog organizations. Is there really any need for these analyses to be mentioned here? 74.74.86.54 (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe these sections should be kept, as they provide useful insight into the movie. The concern of taking the Lord's name in vain was fixed, so I don't see the problem. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, keep it out. That type of content is not standard in Wikipedia articles. Dp76764 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment

"...an event that seemingly foreshadows the friends' separation during college." is analysis and needs to be sourced per WP:FilmPlot --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summary seems too short and does not lend much credence to the fact that the film was both a commercial and critical success. I suggest including full details about the movie's plot so that the reader may have a better understanding of the movie as well as a better understanding of the movie's popularity. For example, lengthening the plot summary while including several explanations of some of the more comedic moments within the film would reinforce this movie's reputation as a hilarious movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec64us (talk • contribs) 10:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I had substantially added to this article, and several people complained that my work was unneeded. Feel free. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the plot seems too short. According to the Wikipedia Film Project style guidelines, plots sections should be 400 to 700 words, and no more than 900 words unless truly complex. It also states plots should be comprehensive. My edit bumped the word count up to 529. This edit took it down to 326. It simply falls short of the goals of the film project in its current state. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The plot can be lengthened when appropriate things are added. As an example, “While in the shop Fogell is hit by a robber” is what happens, to say “While nervously trying to buy alcohol Fogell presents his fake ID which calls him ‘McLovin’ and fools the shop assistant and then he is punched hard by a hooded robber causing him to pass out and get a black eye” is too much detail, and mostly irrelevant (no one has added these words to the artilce, this is just an example). Some quality control is needed, less is more. The plot needs to stay below 700 words, but below 100 words would be preferable. Any further discussion about the themes of the film could be worked in to the intro, which does need to be expanded as a three paragraph lead is recommended. If you want to see what happens once plots bloat read the Saw film summaries. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you are the only one that feels this way. Majority consensus says the plot needs to be longer. elisa^talk. 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Darren. I don't see anything in the guidelines of the Film Project that implies plots should be as short as possible. Below 100 words?! That's less than one word per minute of screen time! OK, we can list themes in the intro, but I think details that describe how these themes were portrayed are critical to a plot synopsis. Plus the guideline states plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section, and/or mentioned in a cast section, are repeated here [in the Plot section]. I agree that some film articles have plot summaries that are too verbose, but I don't think that's the case here. Even Saw is at 703 words, which seems reasonable considering the complexity of that plot. Perhaps Revenge of the Nerds (1,224 words) or Caddyshack (1,345 words) would be a better examples of a plots that could use some trimming. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Saw plot could be trimmed, but that was an example off the top of my head. Lots of film plots need trimming, the longer a plot is the more it encourages people to keep adding jokes and other material not needed. And other Wikipedians have reverted your edits Elisa, not just me, this is not a case of WP:OWN. If people improve the summary then I am happy, but bloating it up with OR is not acceptable, even if I am the only one reverting the bloat. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you aiming this at me?? elisa^talk. 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote "you are the only one that feels this way". Only one sentence was aimed at you, and it was a reply, but [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] I could be forgiven for thinking you had something against my editing. To compare these were the first two large edits I made to the article on 23/01/08 [7] and 10/01/08 [8]. We have made progress from a month ago, and that is what this is about, improvement. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Important plot points that are currently not in the summary:

• Seth and Evan are best friends
• They've never been very popular, especially with girls
• Evan finally works up the courage to talk to Becca and makes a date for the party - as it stands now it seems like she was just a random girl at the party.
• The cops bond with Fogell during their night of escapades - the current summary makes it seem like Slater and Michaels are normal everyday police officers.
• The friendship of Seth and Evan is strained as they discuss future plans and past regrets - this is the climax of the main conflict in the plot
• How do Seth and Evan "happen upon" Fogell, Slater, and Michaels? Again, this reads like ordinary police activity.
• Seth and Evan don't "escape" the party, Seth rescues his friend despite the argument they had earlier.
• The pair reconciles, thankful for the good times they've had together over the years. The conflict is resolved.
• The cops knew Fogell's ID was fake all along and their reasons for "playing along".
• Why did the officers pretend to haul Fogell off to jail?

Please enlighten me on what specific points were OR or bloat. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I had something against your editing is that prior to this entire conversation, you never once contributed to the discussion, and just reverted edits constantly. elisa^talk. 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did, I started a topic [9] about this in September 2007 (which I archive only yesterday) , and no one responded. So I edited.

In response to Hoof;

• Seth and Evan are best friends fine to go in, if I have taken it out it may have been part of a larger revert, but it only needs mentioning once
• They've never been very popular, especially with girls not really relevant to the plot, the part when Evan talks about the "party with adults" is just a visual joke to contrast with his boast

Absolutely relevant to the plot as the entire movie is a quest to "go out with a bang" (no pun intended) despite having virtually no social life. As I put it, Perennial misfits, they long for typical teenage desires: girls, parties, and popularity.

• Evan finally works up the courage to talk to Becca and makes a date for the party - as it stands now it seems like she was just a random girl at the party. some mention of their prior relationship is needed, but does not need to be dwelt upon
• The cops bond with Fogell during their night of escapades - the current summary makes it seem like Slater and Michaels are normal everyday police officers. not really needed, but could be added but not so it ends up being a list of jokes they do, no description of how they dipose of the car is needed etc

Needed if we want to explain the real world context of the film's comedic success as described in WP:PLOT. Two or three briefly mentioned examples seems reasonable (as I had phrased it, The officers display many instances of incompetence, including drinking on the job, unnecessary use of police lights, and improper use of a firearm.)

• The friendship of Seth and Evan is strained as they discuss future plans and past regrets - this is the climax of the main conflict in the plot this happens but invites OR and long discussion of themes instead of a summary of the action

I see this as a key point in the story. If it invites other, poor edits, revert those instead.

• How do Seth and Evan "happen upon" Fogell, Slater, and Michaels? Again, this reads like ordinary police activity. "happen upon" should be changed, this was the shortest way I could see of explaining what happened, but a blow-by-blow of the escape from the cops ("He's the fastest kid in the world") needs to exclude jokes
• Seth and Evan don't "escape" the party, Seth rescues his friend despite the argument they had earlier. they do escape the police, at Jules' party and the first party, the word escape could be changed but the use of rescue would have to be careful

I was referring to the description of Jules' party. I would at least describe Seth as "saving his friend" who was passed out.

• The pair reconciles, thankful for the good times they've had together over the years. The conflict is resolved. I would tread carefully, the conflict and resolution needs to be precise, and not a ramble about their friendship
• The cops knew Fogell's ID was fake all along and their reasons for "playing along". not needed, just a punchline to a joke

I feel it's part of "wraping up" Fogell's storyline. At the liquor store we say the fake ID "appears to fool" the cops. Well, in the end we see that it actually didn't.

• Why did the officers pretend to haul Fogell off to jail? again, just a joke, couldn't really be exlained with out going in to the whole "cock-blocking scene".

A person who never saw the film would ask the same question after reading this plot summary. Here was my description, which did not go into the whole cock-blocking scene They pretend to haul him off to jail in front of the entire party so the rest of the kids will think he's cool.

I suggest trying something in your sandbox, before making a direct edit, message me if you want me to look it over. I am not in any way suggesting I am the final word, or that I own the plot, but this plot was a bloated mess and I tried to "make it not suck", and at all time AGF. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll eventually set up something in my sandbox. By some of your points I wonder if you actually read my revision before you reverted it. I did not simply undo an edit someone else made, but typed my own additions which I thought improved the summary in a concise way, and actually seem to fit most of your recommendations anyway. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read your edit, and these sentences stood out as being either badly phrased or just not needed.

Perennial misfits, they long for typical teenage desires: girls, parties, and popularity. Strange tense, what they long for is maybe acceptance but not a laundry list.

prompting both young men to anticipate a successful summer. OR Not OR. As they were getting ready to leave school I thought one of them said something along the lines of "I'm finally going to get laid, this is going to be a great summer"

The officers display many instances of incompetence, including drinking on the job, unnecessary use of police lights, and improper use of a firearm. They quickly become friends, referring to Fogell by his one-word pseudonym, McLovin. Not needed, just a list of jokes or comedic situations.

but not before smuggling out laundry detergent containers that have been filled with beer. Just a joke.

but heroes none the less. Nonetheless is one word, and the phrase is odd.

They reconcile, realizing everything they've been through as they're growing up. Odd tense, and not really needed for the plot.

in front of the entire party so the rest of the kids will think he's cool. In return, Fogell signs an affidavit to a concocted story to explain the condition of the wrecked police car. Both just jokes, as they are written here, could be put better.

Seth, realizing Evan is passed out on a couch, carries his friend away and they wind up sleeping at Evan’s house. "Wind up" feels superfluous, "they sleep at Evan's house" is a more concise description of what happens. I have copied the plot to a sandbox with your user page let's try to get something better. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<waves white flag>

I don't think we'll be able to reach a consensus. Things that I maintain are critical to a comprehensive summary you describe as unnecessary fluff. I'll be happy to leave your incomplete and substandard summary as it is and move on. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think there should be a spoiler alert at the beginning because it tells the whole movie Duder999 (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So do most movie articles on Wikipedia and you don't see spoiler alerts on all of them. Dp76764 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As it is now, there is no summary section at all, is this supposed to be like that? I'm sorry I cannot contribute myself, because I saw the film only once years ago and am no native speaker of English. User: Dudley Heinsbergen —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

DVD Commentary

i added the part of the commentary i watched the movie along with the commentary last night and it is halarious and one of those off the wall things that you would think they might have edited .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovgun7 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack?

Are we not mentioning the Superbad soundtrack and Bootsy Collins' contributions to it? With other movies I wouldn't have brought it up, but it seemed like a point that was often brought up by reviewers and critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.43.137 (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Movie Poster

The current one is incorrect and appears to be a photoshop job. I would fix it, but it says I do not have authorization to upload files and beyond that I'm frankly not sure how. Here is the correct one http://scenescreen.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/superbad-bigposter.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbert47 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Highest Grossing?

As many others i was suprised that it's mentioned that Superbad is the highest grossing high-school movie ever. Of course the first idea was "American Pie", and when checking it out it grossed revenued 235,483,004 according to box office mojo, so the #3 it gets on the list linked as sourced to the superbad comment with $102,561,004, is that domestic or what? If (sounds weird though), then there should be a mentioned of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.200.215 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Labling This Page as Badware?

Google has labeled this page (and some others relating to Superbad) as a potential malware threat. Anyone got any ideas why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.244.60 (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism??

"[...] who began working on the script when they were both two years old; they completed a draft by the time they were three." Seems weird, they scripted a movie about sex and alcohol when they were two years old? Vandalism, or truth? long-time pornstars They were not pornstars!! Seth was a porn addict, not a porn star. "Fogell is anally assaulted by a hooded g-thug" A hooded male stole from the store, he then assaulted him, but not anally. Anyways this keeps going on, especially in paragraph two, but stops. Please fix. androo123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.182.78 (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Production or Cast

Odd that this article has no Cast section or Casting information or even a Production section. (And no, it wouldn't surprise me if some backroom consensus of a minority had decided last week to change the style guidelines yet again.) I thought a film as popular as this would have much more information in it. Anyhow if the article had been more extensive it would have been easier for me to find an appropriate place to include information about Christopher-Mintz. He has been publicising Kick-Ass and in interviews has mentioned how embarrassingly in Superbad his mother had to be on set during sex scenes. Perhaps if someone else adds Casting, Production, or some other section on the background of the film this insight might fit in there but the article is too bare at the moment to accommodate this. -- Horkana (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Specific links, archiving

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/superbad/site/home.html http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/superbad/site/home_G_rated.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary info about Mintz-Plasse

Recommend deleting the trivia-like section in "Cast" after Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Seems unnecessary and more suited for Mintz-Plasse' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.126.153 (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sequel section

I support removing the section covering the vaporware sequel for this movie. It may have been sourced, but it was trivial and vague future guessing. DP76764 (Talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (technical move requested at WP:RMT) (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

---

• Superbad (film) → Superbad
• Superbad → Superbad (disambiguation)

– The film is far and away the primary topic for the term "Superbad" based on page views [10] -- it generates 3,200 views per day while the other articles generate around 100 total. It is also 14 years old, so "recentism" should not be a factor, especially when most other topics with a similar name are the same age or newer. I realize the James Brown song Super Bad was popular when it was released, but I would note the different spelling of the title. -- Calidum 15:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Agree that it's the primary topic. enjoyer -- talk 23:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, clear primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 05:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I was just about to start an RM when I saw one had already been initiated, and this is easily the term most commonly associated with "Superbad", regardless of spacing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.