Kit Seidel I haven't read them myself, but based on what I've heard we may all be in for a pleasant surprise if/when the film gets a sequel or/and when you or I get our hands on the books

seto749 I can't comment on the mom, I don't watch deleted scenes or pay attention to what actresses do or not, I take the work as presented to me (though it sounds like I might have liked that scene as well). But from what I could see in the film is that she cared for her son enough to tell him that he was ok, and everything's going to be okay in time. Nothing wrong with that. Question, why was the father a "doofus"? He was an intelligent man, not very good with technology, most of that generation to a tee lol... that doesn't mean he or any of them are less smart. I would also say that the dad is actually pushing back against stereotypes more than he is one, men in most movies aren't emotional, they don't cry, they don't say outright that they're wrong, they rarely listen to other's feelings. And this character does all of that which is wonderful, he was a well rounded human being. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Either scene would have been fine alone. The combination is galling, especially as the early part hints that both parents are at least partly inept (maybe the best addition from the book is that Mumsy misspells "Patriarchy" on her protest sign). I can see the point behind showing a range of good responses, but put them up against each other. She ever-so-wisely has always known there was something bothering Simon and gives what is clearly intended to come across as the perfect response. He does provide the positives you mention, but the writers make him undercut them by being such an idiot, not knowing that he's suggesting they join a hook-up site together. Again, either scene alone is fine. In combination, I wish they could have found a way to reverse the scenes, as that would have counteracted a lot of the heavy-handed message, "Women Are Wonderful/Men Are Clowns" running through the film. The deleted scene would have done a good deal to explain why Simon didn't come out earlier, but it would have shown Supermom making a mistake, being too earnest and going too far too fast. The film mother is an improved version of the book mother, while the film father is much more inept than the book father (the inappropriate jokes are greatly increased, for one thing). Almost all the changes flow the same way. Abby has to teach Simon "how to be gay" (a scene the director LOVED); the Leah-Simon balance is shifted to give her the more dignified position; Martin is turned from a geek to much more of a jester; Nick loses his emo edge and becomes a bit of a buffoon as well, though a kind one to make it conceivable Abby would like him; the male principal, completely invented, is a grating, walking Bad Joke; the female drama teacher goes from good to superheroine, etc. It almost makes one wonder whether we're expected to laugh at the out gay boy. It may be partly a mitigating factor that this is the film the director wanted to see when he was in his teens (at least that explains the slightly dated feel). Bram seems to stay pretty much the same. Cal is greatly clarified by the director's cut. From watching the film alone, one could think that they just decided to downplay Cal's interest to make him a potential Blue. But the director implies he saw Cal as straight, so that, in the reversed guessing scene, "he's not insulted, and he's being so kind and concerned," or something to that effect.

nick robinson was a perfect choice for this movie. i dont get why his real life sexual orientation has anything to do with the character itself. hes not playing himself. he is playing a character. there are gay actors that play straight roles. you going to complain about them? at the end of the day a real life person is not a character so what they are in real life is irrelevant to the situation.