Talk:Man of the Year (2006 film)



Untitled

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Man of the Year (film) → Man of the Year – Man of the Year currently redirects to Person of the Year. Since the forthcoming movie is the only thing actually titled Man of the Year, I propose removing the "film" tag on the article and putting a disambig on "Person of the Year" at the top of the article Calwatch 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~
 * Oppose. From 1927 to 1998, Person of the Year was Man of the Year. --Usgnus 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What Usgnus said, plus (film) is the standard parenthetical remark disambiguator for films with names that collide with other common names. --Serge 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Time used this title in the past, and it is significantly linked to Person of the Year, more so than any movie that will come out. 132.205.45.148 01:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've moved the article in anticipation of writing an article about another movie called "Man of the Year;" I didn't know about this move request before I made the move. Sorry if I screwed things up. Otto4711 00:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
In 1994 in Denmark, a comedian was elected into parliament to everyones - including his own - great surprise. Jacob Haugaard meant to make fun of empty political talk and made promises like more sunshine, better christmas presents and following wind for bicycle riders. I wonder if this could have inspired the movie?

Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Popular vote
This movie does not explain how the popular vote has any impact on the electoral college. I doubt that they would use computers for the much easier to manage electoral votes, so they would be accurate and he would lose. This movie tries to make people feel like voting for the president actually matters. Look at Ross Perot, he had so like 19% of the popular vote. How many electoral (the ones that actually count)? None. Natta. Zilch. That computer could have glitched and gave the protagonist 100%, he still would have lost to the triumphant electoral vote.

Because Dobbs won the popular vote in specific states he won the electoral votes from those states. The total electoral votes from those states was more than the 270 required to win the election therefore the state's popular votes does effect the electoral college but the national popular votes does not. Aml830 19:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot
The Second line of the third paragraph says that he was expected to do better than expected. I think that the wording on that should be changed because it just sounds a bit silly. Someone should really get on that.

I don't know if it's been revised since the above comment, but the wording is perhaps worse now (if indeed different), "Dobbs however is expected to perform better than expected, although not as well as expected." I haven't seen the movie, and I have _no_ idea what that sentence is trying to convey, or else I'd revise it myself. Marcthepirate 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I modifid the line to read as follows: "Dobbs performs better than expected, although not as well enough to be close to either of the other two major candidates." Aml830 00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only politically bad.
They hate this film because it implied the cheating scheme of George W. Bush in his two elections. The story is most likely based off the real life election solution provider, Diebold Election Systems (now Premiere Election Solutions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.254.224 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

candidates
I just wanted to note how the two other candidates in the election are the names of the two big cereal companies in the US. Kellogs and General Mills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.133.190 (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

requested move2
This film is not a comedy-drama. It is only a regular drama. The protagonist is a comedian. The reason the movie is humorous is that the main character's job is to be humorous. If the main character wasn't humorous, it would make no sense that a famous comedian wouldn't be humorous. Saying the film is a comedy-drama is like saying school of rock and rock star and 8 mile were musicals. The reason that the characters in those films are making music is because they are musicians. The reason the main character in Man of the Year is making jokes is that he is a comedian. He is the only character in the film making jokes and they're funny to not only the viewers but the characters in the movie too think they're funny. I propose changing the genre to drama instead of comedy-drama. ModerateTy (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)