Talk:Team America: World Police

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Entirely with marionettes[edit]

This statement in the opening paragraph is false. When Team fights those pitched battles with the celebrities, there's a scene where Chris dramatically flicks his cigarette onto a gasoline trail and immolates one. The shot is a close-up of someone's actual hand--I noticed it after the third viewing but since I'm unsure of how many more there might be, I'll simply remove the "entirely with marionettes" portion instead of saying there's just one-shot.Levelistchampion 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the part where the original member who died was proposing to Lisa the ring he held up was held by a real hand, or at least I think so. So that makes it 2 shots. Toxic Ninja 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "panthers" weren't marionettes, either, incidentally. BryanEkers 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


One scene when the main puppet is looking at pictures of sarah and him, the hand is entirely of a human hand.

MiguelHardy 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.2.216 (talk) [reply]

Where does "valmorphanize" come from?[edit]

I am sure the word "valmorphanize" is not just thrown into this film at random. It must be making fun of something or derived from something. It's a funny word with a curious sound and I can't figure out its intention. Does anyone know of its origin? -- Lilwik 05:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well i would be sure to guess that Val, val kilmer had a pretty good ability to disguse himself in his movies. He does a pretty good job of it as well in a few different movies that required him to change his appearance. This isn't to say that there hasn't been others who have done well in that area but he is probably the one they were thinking about when they decided on it. Signifying that who ever Valmorphanizes changes there appearance and or features so that you are unnoticeable from your original appeance. So they called it Valmorphanize. Just speculation to think about though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.216.138.71 (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that Valmorification is reversible cosmetic surgery.71.92.55.138 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Driver[edit]

I could be wrong - but the driver in this film seems to be a female puppet with a 'tache stuck in it? Is it? is a reference to something? --Charlesknight 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Parker", does look odd. Also when Spotswood realises that there's an intruder at the base (Michael Moore) he shouts for Parker and he isn't there. Parker doesn't reappear in the film. It's barely possible that there was some subplot planned with Parker being a double-agent, and that he/she let Moore into the base. It's never going to be much more than speculation though. 125.236.163.115 12:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure the bug that was Kim Jong-Il is a parody of "The Hidden"?[edit]

I saw this movie a year and a half ago with my father, and it was only 2 weeks after seeing Starship Troopers 2 on TV (with my father). We both immediately thought the movie was refering to the human-infecting bugs from that movie when we saw the scene. They tended to crawl out of the head through the mouth area, the way they came in, and looked alot like the one Kim Jong-Il ... uhm ... "regurgitated".

Just thought I should point that similarity out. Salganos 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salganos (talk • contribs) 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Gary resembles Alien's cyborg when vommiting[edit]

I think it is so...isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.145.96.51 (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There's an unfortunate tendency in TV and movie articles to crowd the entry with "such-and-such resembles such-and-such". Unless you know of a statement by the filmmakers along the lines of "...and when we shot the vomiting scene, Trey said he wanted to copy Ash from Alien...", it's original research. Ash wasn't an actor fretting about a terrorist attack and Gary wasn't a damaged android. If you write about the superficial resemblance, you may as well mention every movie character that has a vomiting scene and it'll all be useless. BryanEkers 11:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps Mr Creosote (how could I forget Mr Creosote?). Edeans 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budget, local and worldwide gross[edit]

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2004/TEAMA.php , I just thought I would post that link when I saw that somebody had claimed that the production budget was 30 million. 71.87.7.14 04:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean Melody or Medley?[edit]

I've seen both titles for this track. Can anyone with the actual CD settle this? Amazon lists "Medley," which makes more sense to me, considering it's a medley of three songs. Microfrost 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolverdeling?[edit]

The cast table is entitled "rolverdeling". What on earth is that?
138.243.129.138

It's Dutch, for "casting". I've changed it to english. 71.185.140.64 02:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbirds?[edit]

I am sure that the statement in the opening section about Trey and Matt originally wanting to make the Thunderbirds movie is entirely incorrect. What I have seen in an interview is that they saw Thunderbirds on late night TV and thought it was really funny, having never seen it before. They said they wanted to do a straight remake of The Day After Tomorrow with Thunderbirds-style puppets, as in their opinion that would be funny enough, but they weren't given permission to use the script for TDAT.

In any case, I think the comment about the Thunderbirds movie should be removed unless it can be sourced, and I'll look out for a source for the Day After Tomorrow comments.

Targets of Satire[edit]

In the section on satirising action films, and their portrayal of the US military, I can see a number problems which I propose changing. Firstly, "film makers tend to portray American military (especially Michael Bay) as penultimate heroes and saviours of the world" It makes little sense to me that the military is portrayed as 'penultimate' heroes and saviours. Unless anyone is seeing something here that I don't, I intend to changing this. More importantly, though, the whole expression 'ultimate heroes and saviours of the world' is a subjective opinion of the way the military is portrayed by Hollywood. I think something far more objective is required, but I'm not sure what, exactly.

Secondly, this section appears to contain the work of two people disagreeing with each other, and so contradicts itself in the same paragraph. Either we need a consensus, or we need to remove the section. Views?JakeyJake 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal[edit]

I removed this for OBVIOUS editorializing.

Team America is a reflection of overly-bombastic and idiotic movies like Armageddon and Independence Day; movies that substitute an overload of style (explosions, huge stunts, etc.) over even the smallest bit of substance (character development, plot development, etc.).
Why? It is factual data!

Commentary?[edit]

Someone added something on the trivia section about information that was given on the movie's DVD commentary, but there is no commentary on my DVD, and as far as I know, the edition of the movie I have is the only version released in the U.S. ChesterG 10:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Both R and Unrated editions were released in the U.S.71.92.55.138 (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia?[edit]

"he ridiculous plot of having an actor come in and train for only a few days to become a spy/soldier rather than just have a spy do the job is a direct parody of Armageddon, where they had oil drillers come in and learn to become astronauts in a few days rather than just have astronauts learn to drill. It also indirectly parodies the idea in many Hollywood blockbuster movies that an untrained person in a completely unrelated field can come in and do the job of a highly trained soldier, spy, astronaut, etc." - surely this is a reference to earlier films such as Rocky?


Rocky was not inexperienced though. He had 64 professional fights and comming off a victory before fighting Apollo Creed for the cinematic heavyweight championship. The Tim Burton and Joel Shumacker Batman movies come more into mind. Where just putting on a costume and being a gymnast automaticaly makes somebody a super villain or a super hero. For example, Batgirl, Robin, Catwoman, Riddler etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.248.92 (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puppeteering[edit]

I'd be nice if this article had more on the the people who did the puppeteering. I've wondered if they ever had arguments with the directors "We can make the fight scene look really good, and we can make the strings invisible, and.." "NO! We want it to look silly! They're puppets doing an action film!" :-) --RevWaldo 20:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Targets of Satire" <> "Individuals Parodied"[edit]

The two sections are nearly identical. I am going to merge both into 'Targets of Satire' and delete the latter unless anyone strenuously objects. - IstvanWolf 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jo http://www.occidentalism.org/pic/realkji.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.201.160 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reaction section?[edit]

How is it that there's a section for "response to critical reaction" and not a section for critical reaction? Pele Merengue 08:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team America should redirect to this article[edit]

99% of people searching for "Team America" will be looking for this article, so it shouldn't be a disambiguation page. Most of the articles listed on the disambiguation page aren't even called "Team America". Team America should be moved to Team America (disambiguation). Can someone fix this? 172.143.93.103 02:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag[edit]

The section on the metaphor seems incredibly biased to my view. Great explanation of the literal quote, but I don't particularly think the movie was ascribing political philosophies to dicks, pussies, or assholes. What's the opinion on this? Howa0082 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it definitely was implied and it would not be a stretch to say so, but there is no source so until they find one it may need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.226.170 (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not neutral and it is innacurrate.[edit]

The opening synopsis of this article infers that this is a movie poking fun about "jingoistic" Americans, and 'that the U.S. frequently and autonomously tries to "police the world"'. A very left wing viewpoint. It seems to be the opposite, meaning the authors are poking fun that America is called in by other countries and the U.N. to police the world. The synopsis is very left-leaning, which would be incorrect, as it can be inferred from the South Park series that Trey Parker and Matt Stone lean to the right with their political beliefs. Examples of this include the lambasting of Al Gore's global warming,the episode where Atheists spew feces out of their mouths, and Cartman's hatred of hippies/enviromentalists. This opening synopisis should be re-worked in a neutral way.

Badgeman46 (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Jay[reply]

I agree.--Stijn Calle (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. At first glance the film might even seem to give a strong nod to conservatism. Parody on TV and film is left leaning more than anything else. So when something comes along that gives good parody of the left it stands out, even if the right is also parodied in the same film.Rockford1963 (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Badgeman, that is just silly. How do you connect a "very left wing viewpoint" with the opposition to USA using its powers as a world police and empire? I mean, how is that being on the left side of politics??? Remember, this is not an American article, it is an international English-speaking article. --Nabo0o (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But TAWP is an American film, and per WP:TIES, the article is allowed to tend toward Americanisms. The right wing of United States politics was neoconservative roughly from Ronald Reagan's mid-1980s intervention in Philippine elections until George W. Bush left office in 2009. Critics of neoconservatism tended to have other leftist political views. Perhaps instead of "left" one could say "anti-neoconservative". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it is true that America constantly feels the need to "police the world". Either way this is a very enjoyable movie and is a satirical amusing film. *:*:KingnunandRhysandfan:*:* 13:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingnunandrhysandfan (talk • contribs)

Possible Origin of North Korean Melody[edit]

The "North Korean Melody" in Team America: World Police sounds to me like a botched imitation of the tune of a specific North Korean song from the Pochonbo Electronic Ensemble. Indeed, a few Youtube users have suggested that the original song is "Toshich'eonyeo Shijipwayo" (City Girl Goes to Get Married), from a North Korean movie of the same name [1][2].

The original(?) song is about a girl from Pyongyang moving to the countryside to work and to meet her future husband. Ironically, although the Team America version consists mainly of nonsense words, the original song actually includes two English words ("bus" and, of all other words, "these"!) (see [3]). Also, though the only actual phrase in the "North Korean Melody" is the name Kim Jong Il, it's more likely that the original song was actually made during Kim Il Sung's time!

I'll admit I have no reliable sources that say this is actually the origin of that song, but I'm just throwing out a suggestion. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the basis was the Pochonbo version of Kim Jong Il's signature tune "No Motherland Without You", which can be heard here: [4] ProhibitOnions (T) 12:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A brief history[edit]

An editor pointed out previously that Stone's specific beef with Michael Moore (re A Brief History of the United States of America) is "a bit off the mark" because the animated segment under discussion actually appeared at a slightly different point in time than Stone later recalled in an interview. [5] That is not to say his criticism is completely unfair because, as Stone observed correctly, the cartoon is "very South Park-esque". This unsourced statement was later replaced by another unsourced statement, which basically said instead that Moore must have edited his film afterward to deflect criticism away. [6] So far as I am aware, he did not; the animated segment appears at exactly the same moment as in the theatrical release. Since no references are forthcoming for this claim I will proceed to remove it, leaving the general gist of Stone's criticism untouched. ~ smb 13:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No R's in Korean?[edit]

The article states that there are no R sounds in the Korean language. I do not believe that this is correct as the name "Park," which contains an R, is a very common Korean name. Additionally, the word "Korea" itself contains an R. I had a roommate a few years ago from South Korea and he pronounced it Koh-Ray-Uh, so the R couldn't be silent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there really are no "r" sounds in the Korean language. That is unless you count the alveolar tap (which is, indeed, a rhotic). But the alveolar tap is just an allophone of "l" in Korean (see also here). (In the General American accent, one is example of the alveolar tap is in the "tt" of "little").
The Korean name "Park" is pronounced like the British (RP) pronunciation of "park," so there is no "r" sound there. It's just "Pahk." Sometimes it's even spelled "Pak."
The word "Korea" comes from Goguryeo, which is pronounced with the alveolar tap. (So, basically, "Goguryeo" is pronounced a bit like an American's pronounciation of "go-goody-awe" :)). The modern word for "Korea" in Korean is Hanguk, which has no "r" (or "l"!) sounds at all. --Kuaichik (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim jong il, dictator?[edit]

Referring to kim jong il as a "dictator" is inaccurate, as he did not seize power, but was given power by his father, with the approval of the korean ruling party. To be a dictator, one must seize power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.252.168 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd ya get that notion? Check out dictator first. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 22:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Tell that to Hitler, or the Shah, or Chavez. Solicitr (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before There Was Team America...[edit]

There was Super Adventure Team! I'm astonished that there's not yet an article or stub about this hilarious MTV Thunderbirds parody. And if and when there is one, should the Team America article make reference to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.115.122 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of $1.05[edit]

When I first heard "A buck oh five" in "Freedom isn't Free", I immediately thought it must be an obscure reference to the Japanese Issen gorin (literally "1 yen, 5 rin" or 1.05 yen), which referred to cost of a postcard to a Japanese conscript in WWII, particularly given Trey Parker's strong interest in all things Japanese. However, I've been unable to find any reference supporting this. Anyone else seen anything? It seems a pretty weird coincidence.Prebys (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

The following appeared in the article: "features a cast entirely composed of marionettes (except for two live cats, two nurse sharks, a cockroach, and an adult male dressed as a giant statue of Kim Jong-il)". I removed the word entirely, as there were six exceptions noted. However, most of the exceptions would not generally be considered "cast members". Perhaps this information should b rephrased and relocated in the article. Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First film with marionette nookie[edit]

From the article: "It is believed to be the first film to ever depict marionettes having sex." But I seem to remember the existence of a 1987 porno film titled Pornocchio. Is anyone familiar with that film, or should I ask elsewhere? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK....I'm officially 'creeped out'. Thanks sooo much Damian.

Unbalanced satire, sources needed[edit]

The article currently suggests the comedy satirises different points of view in a balanced way which is not true. Despite some autoirony filmmakers clearly sum up their political stand in "dick, pussies and assholes" monologue. The reception section needs to be supplemented with more reviews. 78.131.137.50 (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact, they've quite clearly explained that in an interview as well, which is quoted in the article.
"Because that's the thing that we realized when we were making the movie. It was always the hardest thing. We wanted to deal with this emotion of being hated as an American. That was the thing that was intriguing to us, and having Gary (the main character) deal with that emotion. And so, him becoming ashamed to be a part of Team America and being ashamed of himself, he comes to realize that, just as he got his brother killed by gorillas -- he didn't kill his brother; he was a dick, he wasn't an asshole -- so too does America have this role in the world as a dick. Cops are dicks, you fucking hate cops, but you need 'em."
They speak approvingly of the USA's role as a 'dick' and that the world needs them to do whatever they're doing. -- 122.169.44.168 (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about two different things. One is the filmmakers' point of view, and the other is the content of film. Stone and Parker may side with America's role in the film, but the film itself satirizes both points of view equally. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should upload an poster...[edit]

...under the presumable current image name found in the code. -- 92.8.96.45 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Movie poster team america.jpg looks like it has been deleted. Any thoughts on why, a small film poster is usually OK per WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because someone fucked with the code, and got it orphaned. How about restoring it then; I've just been able to fix the parameters. -- 92.8.96.45 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's back again. Pity someone didn't spot when it was removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

I cut it the plot summary down and reduced it to 765 words. This is still too long. It needs to be from 500 to 700 maximum. Perhaps I will try to trim it some more tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm so Ronery" should have its own article[edit]

Wikipedia used to have a separate entry for "I'm so Ronery," but it was eventually deleted. The article should be reinstated. Upon the death of Kim Jong Il, the song was mentioned in hundreds of news articles across the globe. Clips of the song were also played on multiple television networks. The song has clearly left enough of an impression in the public mind to deserve an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.226.134 (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvinced by this, as it would have WP:GNG issues. The song is fun, but not a key part of the film to the point where it needs its own article. Incidentally, Kim Jong-il's death led to 17,000 page views for this article yesterday.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Juche: the art of being so ronery. 198.151.130.54 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration: Wait, What?[edit]

“The film was primarily inspired by Thunderbirds, a popular British TV show created by Gerry and Sylvia Anderson which also featured an all-marionette cast, though Stone and Parker were not fans of the show.”

(No obvious source was provided.)

That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. How do we know it was not merely similar to this show, but in fact “inspired by” it? --X883 (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon "inspired by" was overstating the case a bit, so I modified it, but for those of us who grew up in the UK or Canada and actually watched "Thunderbirds" as kids, Team America is certainly parodying that show along with everything else that is being made fun of. Invertzoo (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“perfecting”?[edit]

spent nearly two years perfecting the script — Am I right in imagining that this choice of words is NNPOV? We can’t imply the script is “perfect,” can we? --X883 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very common English idiom meaning "making as good as possible (given the circumstances)", not making literally perfect. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Length of plot summary[edit]

The plot summary was tagged as too long and detailed. I just now cut it down from 728 words to 535. Wikipedia film plot summaries are supposed to be between 400 and 600 words in length. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has changed but WP:FILMPLOT says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." -- 109.79.84.235 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Please could we have the search term "durka durka mohammed jihad" redirect here? Crazy Eddy (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously wrong assertion[edit]

A week later, the conservative group Move America Forward criticized the film, saying it was "inconceivable" that filmmakers would have spoofed the Nazis during World War II.
Considering all the propagandistic anti-Nazi cartoons and comedy films listed in List of World War II short films (see also Nazis in fiction) this criticism is so ridiculously wrong that I wonder if it is not worth pointing out this fact in the article. These cartoons may not be commonly shown nowadays and thus unfamiliar but for a political group this level of uninformedness is so spectacular and unexcusable that the foul-up should not be passed over silently, especially considering that many readers may not be aware of these cartoons and films either and therefore miss just how egregiously stupid this remark is. Epic facepalm. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Klingon in Template[edit]

I'm aware that in the English dialogue, one word is spoken in Klingon, but its listing in the Template Languages section suggests that there is an entire Klingon language version. While (a) literally true and (b) amusing, and at the risk of my seeming a killjoy, are we happy with this, or is a Klingon language version actually available? (I don't have a DVD in order to check, but web-searching suggests not.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Team America: World Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Team America: World Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undue?[edit]

Can anyone explain why the Development section is tagged "Undue"? Section seems well sourced, not too long, and not putting undue emphasis on anything. -- 109.79.84.235 (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not the most beautifully written section but I don't think it has undue weight problems. I've removed the tag. Popcornfud (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in the same universe as South Park[edit]

I'm wondering this because Spotswood says have you ever seen a man eat his own head which implies he could have been in the audience when David Blaine ate his own head in Super best friends 92.41.62.221 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing bias[edit]

The movie "satarizes american militarism...".

Nope, the movie for the most part makes fun of the self-hating, anti-american left. 80.131.55.79 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Is there some reason we have to mention puppets twice in the lead? People won't be confused if they have to wait a few sentences to find out there are puppets in the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty standard to give the type of movie, particularly where it isn't live action, e.g. animated, CGI etc in the opening sentence. It's a defining characteristic of the subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Defining characteristic according to whom? Not AFI, who list the primary genres as "comedy, satire". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s a genre. Like “live action” or “claymation” isn’t a genre. There’s no reason to only put genres in the first sentence description of things. But every animated movie I look up has “animated” in the first sentence. It tells the reader how it was filmed, ie. Without human actors on screen. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moore and Baldwin[edit]

From the article I conclude that Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin are presented with their real names as representants of the liberal "Actors Guild"? If that is the case it should be stated explicitly, as it is not a common part of such movies. (Of course the idea that liberals are pacifists and conservatives bellicists is somewhat outdated, but would match the zeitgeist of the movie.) 93.199.245.28 (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Film Actors Guild (F.A.G.) is a parody of the Screen Actors Guild. The end credits say "Alec Baldwin, Hans Blix, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Janeane Garafolo, Danny Glover, Ethan Hawke, Helen Hunt, Samuel L. Jackson, Peter Jennings, Kim Jong Il, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen and Liv Tyler did not authorize the use of their names or contribute any performances to this motion picture." (screenshot) This is something that could be mentioned in the article. The film is clearly meant to depict these people in comedy situations, although they did not give their permission for it to happen.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musical?[edit]

I haven't seen it in a long time, but wasn't this film a proper musical, like Bigger, Longer & Uncut? I remember a quantity of songs that move the story along. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Team_America:_World_Police&oldid=1211393356"