Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010 film)

Zach Gordon singing "Total Eclipse of the Heart"
Are there any sources that Zach was the actual voice used in the movie to sing for the audtion? Leavebeaver2me (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Director on the DVD commentary confirmed that is not Zach Gordon singing, as they dubbed his voice for the film. The other kids singing in the audition were not dubbed. Lacinius (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the other singers were not dubbed.KF5LLG (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

don't vandalize please.
If you are going to complain about the new film poster update, put it in the discussion. Don't vandalize this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.64.173 (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Manny?
I thought Manny was gonna be in this. He is ONE of the characters, you know!-- Daisy18108  Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought Manny was gonna be in it too. Does anybody know why he's not? Cuz I heared this movie takes place when Manny was recently born. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Manny is a character in the books and the movies, but in the first movie he doesn't have a big role, because the actor that plays him is a toddler. Ferretman1 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Manny will be in it, he is in the trailer. BelieVerr (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's played by the Fielding twins, Connor and Owen. 209.175.117.2 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cast
Do we really need Yellow Labrador puppy in the cast? I think they'll know that they're using a dog. BelieVerr (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cast II
Okay, some Nickelodeon-obsessed fan-girl just vandalised the whole 'Cast' section. I'm gonna try and patch it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sheridan (talk • contribs) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cast III
According to the trailer, a guy named Coach Malone will be in the movie. Does anyone know who plays him? 75.69.239.55 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Found it. 75.69.239.55 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast IIII
Alright, someone just said that Neil Patrick Harris plays Frank. Whover did this needs some reliable sources. 75.69.239.55 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe that guy is a little bit clueless; Neil Patrick Hariss must be Racheal's wife.~ Wimpy Fan boy  t g 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:FORUM
"...bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article" I just wanted to reaffirm that by this section and adding Template:Notaforum --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Age of Greg Heffley in Movie
In the movie, is Greg 11 or 12? Recently someone changed 11 to 12 and was reverted. I do not see evidence for either. I will remove the age for now. Uncle uncle uncle 20:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wimpy Kid Movie Diary reveas his age in the movie: 12.--Cegalegolog99 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. Doesn't 12 seem quite old for someone in the 6th grade?~ Wimpy Fan boy  t g 14:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC) (formerly Cegalegolog99)
 * I guess I'm right. He must be 11 in the movie.~ Wimpy Fan boy  chit-chat?sign mine! 14:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is still quite a fight for Greg's age. Just stick with 11, for heaven's sake! ~ Wimpy Fan boy  chit-chat?sign mine! 18:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Movie length
Is the movie 94 minutes or 120 minutes? People have been reverting it lately. Somebody500 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDB reports 94, Yahoo Movies reports 91, Variety magazine reports 92, Fandango reports 94 min, and 2 hours seems long for a kids movie anyway. Lets go with 94. liquidluck ✽ talk  17:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which websites say 120? liquidluck ✽ talk  17:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Movie Insider, Metacritic, Review Journal, and a lot of other websites. Somebody500 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange. Which one's are more reliable? liquidluck ✽ talk  19:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there are so many websites that say 120 minutes, I don't know which is more reliable. Somebody500 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the movie today, it's the shorter one. J.Severe (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Problem solved.~ Wimpy Fan boy  t g 14:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated information
It says a bunch of times that Zachary Gordon stars as Greg. Isn't once enough?!? I think the cast should be removed from the plot section.~ Wimpy Fan boy  t g 14:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Second film director
Someone said David Bowers will direct the second film. Is that really true?! I bet it's still Freudenthal.~ Wimpy Fan boy  chit-chat?sign mine! 14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is ! x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.149.19 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack
What is the soundtrack when Greg decided to get rid the old clothes of Rowley ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.169.188.206 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Differences Between the Books and Movies

 * Could a list of things that are different between the Diary of a Wimpy Kid book and the film be put on the page? The same thing should be done for the other two films! --24.147.1.197 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Vandals
What is with all the IP vandalism going on in this article? I reported the page to be semi-protected because I really cannot stand troublemaking kids vandalizing very important articles. And with their bad grammar, they stand out from the rest. 118.209.2.5 (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight or original research in the lede
This exact undue weight revert I just did a little over a week ago on The Angry Birds Movie just had to be done here as well, so I would like to ping the users who participated in the discussion there:, , , , , and. For anybody new to this debate, NinjaPirateRobot believes that it is WP:OR to claim that any Rotten Tomatoes rating is considered "mixed", while I believe it is WP:UNDUE to mention specific aggregate sites in the lede and generally confusing to claim different consensuses from very similar percents. Why did I start another discussion? Because NPR recently gave a "final block warning", which I obviously want to avoid by having a discussion instead of edit warring. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Unnamed anon Mentioning specific aggregate sites in the lead definitely doesn't sit well with me. It can also cause an article to run afoul of the rule that all Wikipedia articles are neutral. Review aggregate sites should be mentioned in the reception section, if at all. Historyday01 (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Two things. First, I'll just repeat in a nutshell what I've said many times before. If Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic show different results, or there is a classification such as "mixed" that is hard to apply to both, then we are better off avoiding a summary statement altogether in the lead. An alternative is to find a reputable source (other than RT and MC) that has evaluated overall critical consensus, and then form the summary statement based on that source instead. Another alternative is to settle on language like "unfavorable" or "not well received", both of which simply mean "not positive", which covers the mixed and negative ranges.Second, instead of going article to article repeating these discussions, perhaps take it to WT:FILM to hash out project wide. Next step after that would be an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your input. I was surprised and disappointed to see NPR doing the same edits contrary to what we all discussed two weeks ago, as well as giving a final block warning to another user, so I thought discussing this again would prevent an unwarranted block warning. I did not know about the existence of the WikiProject page, so thank you. I will most likely use take it to the WikiProject if NPR ignores the discussion again and does the exact same edit to a third page. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI that NPR is one of the few editors I'd consider a long-time veteran of the film project, and also an editor that has been extremely helpful in fighting vandalism across all areas of Wikipedia. This is just a minor content dispute. While it would be nice to eventually move toward a resolution, keep in mind this is one of those contentious areas where a lot of really good editors have varying opinions on. Getting an agreement project wide will take some patience, a lot of participation, and the right compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree. I think this is definitely worth an RfC, considering how many articles use Rotten Tomotoes. It definitely should be hashed out. Historyday01 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, stop canvassing. Second, stop adding unsourced synthesis that contradicts a review aggregator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate the accusation of canvassing. At all. I made sure to present the debate in a neutral manner by presenting both your side and my side, without disparaging the original research concerns, and I do not appreciate you accusing me of breaking a rule just because you're on the other side of the debate. If you're talking about my mention of your block warning to another user, that actually is a concern because you're giving that type of warning for a simple content dispute. Knock off your accusations, because they are extremely unproductive. Second, you keep focusing on the symbol next to the percent being red or green, I keep focusing on the actual percent being more than half of the reviews being positive. Both are valid. Even with a strict reading of the rotten or fresh ratings, saying "negative reviews" is also a direct contradiction of the source when this applies to less than half of them. I do appreciate you completely removing the critical reception in the lede rather than reverting to your version, which shows you're willing to a compromise. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can not interpret "actual percent"; this is your own opinion based on original research, which carries no weight. If you think that anything below 60% is "mixed", you must follow WP:BURDEN and cite the line from the source that explicitly calls it "mixed". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your repeated accusations of original research aside (which you seriously need to stop, I have reminded you again and again that it is counterproductive), I will humor your argument and give you a direct quote calling a sub-60% movie "mixed". This is for a movie with the exact same percent score as this one, Super Mario Bros movie gets mixed reviews as Rotten Tomatoes score revealed… At the time of writing, the film's Rotten Tomatoes score is 54% from 101 reviews, a slight uptick from its initial score below 50%.. The source explicitly states that a movie (albeit a different one whose percent has risen since that article was written) below 60% has mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I would also like to give this source directly from Rotten Tomatoes; nowhere does it say that a rotten percentage score constitutes "negative", contrary to what you are repeatedly parroting. The Tomatometer score represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show… When at least 60% of reviews for a movie or TV show are positive, a red tomato is displayed to indicate its Fresh status. When less than 60% of reviews for a movie or TV show are positive, a green splat is displayed to indicate its Rotten status. It simply says which icon is being used when a movie is at a certain percent. If anything, to say that every "rotten" overall percent score counts as " overall negative reviews" is more of original research than anything you're accusing me of, especially if more than half of the reviews for a movie are positive. You might be thinking of the fact that the percent score is made up of critics whose reviews are only listed as positive or negative instead of mixed and use the same terminology of "fresh" and "rotten", but you're wrongly applying that binary system to the overall percent score as well, when the primary source doesn't reflect that all rotten percent scores mean "generally negative reviews" anywhere. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If we follow NPR's argument that to refer to any Rotten Tomatoes percentage as "mixed" is WP:OR, which in the strictest of senses would technically be correct, then we simply won't use Rotten Tomatoes to assert anything of the sort, because we won't deliberately include something incorrect just because we can't say what's actually correct. Because, strictly speaking then, Rotten Tomatoes doesn't say if a film got positive, mixed or negative reviews, it simply states what percentage of critics gave the film a positive. When making a statement in the lead, we either just stick with Metacritic's words, which allow for more nuance, or simply find a different reliable source that does a summary of reviews, typically those articles with titles such as "What the Critics Are Saying". We'll use Rotten Tomatoes for what it's actually supposed to be used, which is stating its percentage, it's average score, and its critics consensus in the Critical response section, and that's it. —El Millo (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

An overhaul proposal for this series. Or, at least, the Long Haul and the 2010 film.
The Wimpy Kid films are fairly documented, especially the first one, when it comes to their making. As the movie diaries were not only written by the author of the series (who had a major role in the films, too,) I don't get how undocumented the pages appear as. The second and third films sort of make sense; in the revised editions of the original movie diary they only both get a small segment to themselves, with a majority of even the 2012 revision consisting of just the making of the first film. The 2017 film got its own movie diary, so it'd obviously be just as documented as the first film. Now, we don't know stuff such as when filming occurred from both; just that they were in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2016 respectively. It has also been a while since I read both, so I might be incorrect, but there's no way that there's not more documentation in both. BuggleJuggle (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There is indeed plenty of documentation about the film's productions in those books, it's just no one bothered to add such information to these pages. Feel free to add such information as you see fit (as long as it isn't plagiarized, of course.) Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)