Talk:The Undefeated (2011 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Alaska (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

The name of the film?[edit]

Does anyone know why the film is called "The Undefeated"? I thought that Palin's most famous moment was being defeated by Obama/Biden in 2008. Is the title supposed to be an ironic reference to this, or does it refer to something else entirely?86.163.169.181 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We would need a source for this, but i strongly suspect (not having seen the film, mind you) that it refers to her not appearing personally defeated by the various obstacles and setbacks she has faced. She may have lost the biggest political campaign in the world, but she still sees herself as a "winner", as do her followers. Its too soon to find a source for this possibility, but give it a week or so, and some commentator may point this out.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.138.151 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I added some commentary which attempts to explain the title. not exactly my suspected meaning, but its whats being said, by notable critics, so we can add it. for NPOV, I would welcome any reviews or analysis from sources other than the "liberal media elite", as palin would describe them.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.138.151 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that the filmmaker chose the name for its "triumphant" tone. this is undoubtedly directly connected to Triumphalism, which, in its modern Christian manifestation, completely dominates the american right wing today. i would love to see a source on this. Believe me, the truth is out there.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.138.151 (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have to disagree, to a certain extent. It's not so much about a certain doctrine triumphing over all others, it's seems to be how Sarah Palin herself is an undefeated figure. Yes, she lost an election, but that's not the point. The point is, despite whatever happens in the world of elections, Sarah Palin is still a very influential figure, speaker, and personality. (The fact that people continue to criticize her mercilessly is proof of that - who puts that much effort in criticizing someone irrelevant?) And it goes on a deeper, more personal level, too: Sarah Palin has been attacked by what seems like pretty much EVERYONE, yet she doesn't give up and she doesn't compromise her beliefs. She still retains them, and she still speaks them boldly. It's somewhat resembling the Christians of the ancient Church. Many of them suffered hideously and were killed for what they believed, but they never recanted their faith in Jesus Christ. They were certainly "Undefeated", but not in a physical sense.
So, that's the general concept that I - someone who actually watched the movie and agrees with its train of thought - think the title is referring to. And it's likely that there are articles out there which say the same basic thing, if someone will go out and find them.
Yes, I am a Palin supporter and a Christian. Feel free to beat me up, or whatever your standard operating procedure for dealing with Palin-supporters is. StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Are we really comparing Sarah Palin to people like Polycarp? Really? Don't we think that is a tad bit extreme? Sarah Palin goes on tv and says things which she allegedly believes, is bad mouthed by one group of tv personalities and championed by another. Polycarp wrote theological letters to Christian communities and was martyred in an arena in a particularly brutal fashion. I do not see how these are analogous. I see how a film maker might want to make them seem analogous, but anyone with any knowledge of Sarah Palin, the early Church, and/or what makes two things comparable should easily recognize that, no, Mrs. Palin is neither a martyr nor a Church Father. 24.126.83.200 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You're all grasping at straws, when the obvious reference is to "The Undefeated", a 1969 American Western film starring John Wayne. And John Wayne, Ms. Palin will surely tell you, is a "great American." And you don't need to dig any deeper than that. Arcanicus (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed biased language[edit]

The article previously stated "After the United States elections in November of 2010, when the Republican Party swept elections...." That is biased and inaccurate. The GOP did well, but it certainly didn't sweep elections. It lost many key races, too, like Nevada and Delaware. I changed the text to something more neutral. 64.38.198.56 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

While we are talking about biased language, doesn't the intro highlighting her defeat in the 2008 election seem like it is mocking the title. (I'll speculate the title isn't a reference to her electoral wins and losses) When we speak of losing candidates for national office, we more often say they were the respective party's nominee.

Is it not possible that a 3 paragraph article about Palin not get pulled into the hyper partisan muck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.170.21 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, she did in fact lose the election, and the title of the film is indeed "The Undefeated". To try to re-word things such that these two facts are not close together would be in and of its self POV-pushing. If anyone were to propose something like "Half-term Alaska Governor and losing republican presidential candidate who quit her bus tour early" I could see your point, but as it stands the language seems pretty neutral — Mike :  tlk  04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it is presumptuous to assume the undefeated refers to electoral wins and losses. It's fine to ensure that the reader knows she did not become vice president as a result of the 2008 election (if that is relevant to this article, should every article mentioning her renote that? I'm not sure). But using the term defeated in the second sentence implies that the title of the book is a lie, and has become a favorite mocking point for people who do not like her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.170.21 (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone made a change that I have no problem with. It now simply says that she was the republican nominee. Let's consider this issue resolved — Mike :  tlk  01:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Film description[edit]

It's described as "political documentary". Doesn't it meet the description of a propaganda film? --88.100.2.160 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It probably does. But Fahrenheit 9/11 is just as much of a political documentary as The Undefeated, if not more so, and it's only called "propaganda" in the context of an Ed Koch quote. There's no particularly valid reason that The Undefeated should be treated differently. --StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted this change. The term "propaganda" has negative connotations, and per WP:TERRORIST and WP:BLP it does not belong in the first sentence of this article. — Mike :  tlk  04:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Just curious -- did any of the film critics who gave it bad reviews say anything about the film itself? From the looks of the section in the article now, all they had to say was that they don't like Palin. 141.149.12.178 (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Added some reviews. Feel free to add more... – Lionel (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic[edit]

It's known for game reviews, not movie reviewing so much. I think having Rotten Tomatoes is more than sufficient. If no objections I'll remove it.– Lionel (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)