Talk:Death of a President (2006 film)

Editorializing

I took out the lines "internationally unpopular". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the editorial page of a newspaper.

Interesting. Its actually been quite popular overseas; a quick google will pull this stuff up. So perhaps "internationally unpopular" is also inaccurate or plain incorrect?

Borough Films

Borough Films is linked to this, but there is no 'wiki info'. Chris 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The director has given his first interview; maybe someone should try to implement some of the info in it. Here's the link: [1]

Cheney being president

I wonder how they will play this out, as he stated; "If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve."

In a situation such as described in the documentary, his assumption of the Presidency would involve neither nomination nor election, but the line of succession.

Reaction section

After seeing Inside Edition with an interview of the film's director, and general knowledge on how politicians react to these things, it's important to note that Hillary Clinton and most if not all of the GOP in Texas hasn't actually SEEN the film! Wouldn't their comments end up being baseless? --Chicobo329 23:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Then again, how often do politicians have a base at what they say? _I am not signing_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.94 (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivia; Kim Il-Jong

Bush's speechwriter says Kim Jong-il's name badly; she says it more like Kim yil-Jong. (I know it's just a film, but in the film's reality you would expect the speechwriter to the President of the USA to be able to pronounce the names of foreign leaders.) It takes place about 12 minutes into the movie, after she mentions the "Sea of Japan" incident.JimmmyThePiep 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true; but I'm not sure it's notable enough to warrant any inclusion in the article. It's just a fictional character mispronouncing something. BoosterBronze 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I thought it could go in a trivia section. (On TV.com, that's where it would go.) Nevermind then ... JimmmyThePiep 08:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that it's Kim Jong Il, not Kim Il Jong.141.157.220.156 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Starring?

Shouldn't this movie be credited as starring Bush, Cheney and other political figures considering the moving is centered around them?

mh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.142.11.84 (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Use of actual war footage

In my opinion, the most disturbing image of the film is not of Bush being shot (which of course was fabricated), but the actual footage of an Iraqi insurgent getting shot in the head. Since this is a fictional drama, this actually makes the film one of the few "entertainment" pieces in which the actual death of someone is shown. (Oliver Stone's JFK, which includes the Zapruder assassination film in its entirety, is another example). I wonder if this is worth noting? 68.146.41.17 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Especially since this is precisely the type of footage of the actual fighting in Iraq that is being seen in Britain and elsewhere in Europe and the world, but is almost wholly unseen on our media outlets here in the U.S.. Alinnyc 05:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Deathofapresidentcnnscreen2.jpg

Image:Deathofapresidentcnnscreen2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

British Style Format

This article was never intended to be displayed in a "British Style" format. This is the 'American Version' of wikipedia, and is meant to be written in "AMERICAN ENGLISH". This article is ABOUT a british film; but there's no need to insert british stylized text like frequently putting in Dashes--in between words as a conjunction, or british spellings for words like "criticize" (spelling it as 'criticised' with an S instead of a Z) and the rearranging of Date Formats like adding the day before the month (ie. 6 October) instead of October 6. The way this article is written is ridiculous. Just because the subject matter is British in origin, doesn't mean it has to be written that way.Leenoor 18:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. The formatting convention is that spellings should be that of the subject of an article (British spellings for a British film, person, etc.). Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English The JPS^{talk to me} 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry as I strongly suspect that you have been using multiple accounts to edit this article over the past couple of days. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In cases like this, what is the subject: the makers and making of the film (British) or the subject matter of the movie (American)?211.225.34.177 (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Official Site?

The article lists the official website for the film with the following web address: http://web.archive.org/web/20070711144809/http://www.deathofapresident.com However, I did a search on Google, and another site comes up. It is the following: http://www.deathofapresident.com/ Does anybody know, which website is the real official page? Or are they both correct? Whats the difference between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.142.222 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The one currently linked is an archive of deathofapresident.com from July 2007, hosted by Internet Archive. The site at deathofapresident.com today is a WordPress blog consisting of two posts, both of which are entirely composed of text copied from the old site (the "Synopsis" and "Reviews from people who have not seen the film" sections), so the archived site contains all the content of the current site and more. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for describing the differences. Then the archived site is definitely the correct one to be displayed for the article. 98.113.142.222 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death of a President (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061028060140/http://today.reuters.com:80/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2006-09-12T050038Z_01_N11475432_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-FILMFEST-PRESIDENT.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090205204509/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2006/09/16/tiff-awards.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/09/16/tiff-awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)