Talk:Man of the Year (2006 film)

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular vote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It's only politically bad. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  candidates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  requested move2