This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

There is no redirect to this page from the early 60's movie "17 again" or the 2000 showtime move "Seventeen Again". FYI 12.192.9.22 (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe a not to be confused with 18 Again --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "plot" section was copied and pasted from IMDB and should be deleted. It was inserted onto WP on 18-Feb-2008, but according to archive.org it was on IMDB on 8-Feb-2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20080208161435/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974661/synopsis Peter Ballard (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm deleting the entire plot, because it was copied from a copyrighted source. It needs to be rewritten. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974661/synopsis. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Peter Ballard (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It said previously that Scarlet was pregnant in the opening part of the film (when it's set in 1989) and that this is why Scarlet was going to dump Mike at the start of the film. I don't think she was pregnant, because their daughter,, Maggie would now be twenty, surely too old to be in High School? Scottrb (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe she had a miscarage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzymac (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it said she TOLD him she was pregnant, so that's at least 8 months until she's born, so she'd be more like 19... and who knows, maybe she failed a grade or something? 68.221.209.13 (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The movie was filmed in late 2007 and was probably intended for a 2008 release. So I wouldn't take the "present" scenes to necessarily be set in 2009. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, I don't think the typical target audience for this was thinking that far ahead.... either that, or he has a kid that moved out already and everyone is just pretending didn't happen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

=============

I can't find any record of a book by Dan Fogelman as stated in the opening line of the Wikipeida article.

According to IMDB: "Is "17 Again" based on a book?

Answer: No. 17 Again is based on a screenplay by American screenwriter Jason Filardi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.43.77 (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is where interested editors should discuss whether to include a mention that this was the last film Perry appeared in. Editors need to reach consensus here, not edit war in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• My two cents: it should not be mentioned. The movie was in 2009. I haven't found a single news article on his death that found that factoid to be worth mentioning. Schazjmd (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I agree with Schazjmd that it should not be mentioned in this article, as it's a movie from 14 years ago, Perry was a supporting actor, and Perry had had numerous TV roles since then, so it's not like he was a prolific film actor where this was his last film released a year before his death (or even posthumously). The fact that this was the last film he appeared in is so far removed for an article about the film. It's tangential trivia at best. At the limit, including it might even be considered WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Rowing007 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sure, it may be one of his final film roles, but really not worth mentioning since, as stated above, Perry was a supporting actor in this film, and it's basically a trivial mention. Tails Wx 14:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Do not mention this is not an attribute of the film. When the film was made, released etc it had no connection to an event 14 years later. The scope of the article isn't about what happened to actors afterwards. These two things are not related. Canterbury Tail talk 14:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Do not mention: This is the type of factoid that winds up as a single line in IMDB trivia sections. Ravenswing 15:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Do not mention: Perhaps if this was a current/recent film, but it was too long ago to make last film a notable comment.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You guys always lack details in the page so please fix it already by adding Matthew's final film role. Otherwise, you will keep lacking sufficient details. 182.255.41.207 (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And as for you, Rowing007. If you don't stop removing any relevant details about 17 Again that made Matt upset and if you don't remove any warning labels about the consensus thing, prosecutions will occur. 182.255.41.207 (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]