Talk:Team America: World Police

Retarded Damon

I remember I heard somewhere that when they were making the Damon puppet, they made a few copies first. All the copies turned out 'retarded' looking. I am just wondering if it is worth mentioning that they tried (and failed) to make an accurate copy of Matt Damon before they decided on having him be retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tydamann (talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong trivia

Parker and Stone have often said that their original plan for the film was simply to recreate Armageddon not day after tomorrow.

-G their commentary on the SP episode making fun of DAT says otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.53.219.20 (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And how come the trivia is banned? The trivia was interesting. A million other articles have trivia sections! ALL of the South Park episodes have trivia sections! Are trivia sections going to be banned like spoiler warnings now? ForestAngel (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How Come There Isn't a Quotes Section?

There should be a list of famous (or rather infamous) quotes from this movie. After all, the stuff they say is hilarious and pretty satirical sometimes. IMDB already has a long list of quotes, would be hard to just copy over some what they already typed out.

Removed the sentence about profit

I removed the sentence saying that the movie made a profit worldwide. The claimed $50 million is hardly enough to cover the costs of a $30 million movie let alone make a profit.

How is making $20 million not a profit???

North Koreans angry?

I was looking on a forum for the Korean Friendship Association (KFA) and they seem to hate it because the movie makes fun of Kim Jong-il (They LOVE, and I mean LOVE, North Korea, Kim Jong-il and so on. They say that the creators are bastards and fools/idiots just because they made fun of Kim. --Dofer49

Were you surprised by that? SteelyDave 02:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We all assumed the North Koreans had no access to the outside world.--Greasysteve13 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But we are vandalising this fucking article! We have access to the outside world!

My guess is that the state nespapers etc blasted the movie and stirred hate against it. I didn;t suggest that North Koreans actually saw the thing, more along the lines of Christian ire at Brokeback Mountain... SteelyDave 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, why did the North Koreans want the movie to be banned in, of all places, the Czech Republic? ForestAngel (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Baldwin wanted to voice his own puppet?

I've heard from an internet source that Alec Baldwin offered to provide his own voice, but cannot find a source at this moment. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks. --OneTopJob6 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Baldwin has balls. I like balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.38.115 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, Moore-o-philes

User:Supreme Moolah of Iran wrote in one of his edit summaries of this article: "jeez, someone's a mooreophile -- no one thinks he's actually a suicide bomber". That may be true today, but he fails to realize that fictitious movies about real people have the power to convict those people in the court of public opinion. Just ask Antonio Salieri. Many who saw Amadeus probably think Salieri really was a crucifix-burning, murdering blasphemer and a mediocre musician to boot.

DUDE, THIS WAS A PUPPET!!!!

The last section of an MSNBC article, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6228221/ explains the reason for this tremendoous insult against Michael Moore. Even Stone must realize that he has overreacted: "I did an interview, and he didn’t mischaracterize me or anything I said in the movie. But what he did do was put this cartoon right after me that made it look like we did that cartoon."

A good joke has a kernel of truth to it. A bad joke like this one involving Moore just leaves one with a bitter taste. 141.217.41.201 21:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've taken out the (Moore is not a suicide bomber) comment. Anyone that is crazy enough to think that Moore is a suicide bomber in real life is welcome to their padded cell. AlistairMcMillan 22:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good luck incarcerating the crazy conservatives in this country. Besides, even people who know that Moore is a true American patriot will want to know why he is being portrayed in such an opposite way in this movie. Robert Happelberg 20:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's right, I was wondering that. Thanks. Del arte 17:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this if f'ing ridiculous. Should we also put a comment in just to make sure that people understand that Kim Jong-il isn't REALLY a bug? How about the Eiffel Tower, shouldn't we add a comment just in case people think the real one was destroyed and decide to cancel their holidays to Paris? Or Hans Blix, what if someone thinks he is really dead? If we are going to talk down to the idiots who might think Moore is really a suicide bomber, then surely we have to be balanced and talk down to ALL the idiots.

And again, for the second time, STONE WAS NOT PISSED OFF THAT HE WAS MISCHARACTERISED. In the MSNBC he said he was perfectly happy with his characterisation in Bowling. He was pissed off that some people might think he was involved in producing the cartoon that followed his interview, because... the cartoon followed his interview. And having seen him in interviews I think there is a pretty good chance he was joking about that.

Perhaps the reason that Moore is being portrayed as an f'ing suicide bomber is that IT IS FUNNY!!!

And just to be f'ing clear, I'm a BIG fan or Moore. I've seen all his movies, read all of his books that I can find, watched his TV series. But I really don't think we should pander to morons. AlistairMcMillan 21:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So no one would be stupid enough to think Michael Moore is actually a suicide bomber. Got it. But would they conclude that Moore is un-American? Would they conclude that Moore would support terrorism? Del arte 17:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, if people are going to watch a puppet-show filled with overblown Hollywood Action (with a capital A) scenes and musical numbers and think it accurately reflects reality... AlistairMcMillan 00:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me if people get the impression that Moore is un-American, because it's a pretty established fact. Supreme Moolah of Iran 00:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moore is a true American patriot using the First Amendment for what our Founding Fathers intended it to: for the purpose of holding Government accountable. The only grounds the free speech of Parker and Stone can be defended on is the purely abstract principle: if we are to have free speech, all speech must be defended, even if petty and ignorant like this movie. Robert Happelberg 19:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moore is no less petty or ignorant; he is a simplistic hack, but I agree with R.H. completely: the fat f*ck holds the government accountable, and that is why we have free speech. Trey and Matt do the same thing, in a satirical way.

Can someone please shorten the plot synopsis? Do we really have to mention every single plot point? The plot summary on South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is only one paragraph, Orgazmo is only two paragraphs. I would shorten it myself, but I haven't even seen the movie yet. AlistairMcMillan 22:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is a better movie and deserves more attention that this movie. I'd shorten the plot summary myself (it was a byproduct of my movie review) but I think we should hold off until the rest of the article develops a little more. I'm grateful to those who have improved the summary with details (i.e., the Pickelhaube helmet, the qipao). Del arte 17:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moore isn't exactly a suicidal terrorist, "moore" of a coward flinging poo. --69.67.236.95 00:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Critical Balance

I added an outright positive review of the film from a respected source to balance out the the negative review. The Metro Times review, IMHO, is lukewarm at best. --Feitclub 15:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for that addition. Since no clear critical concensus emerged, it is best to try to include all sides of crical reaction. Robert Happelberg 23:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of critical reaction, has there been any word from Gerry Anderson about the movie's use of "his" puppetry techniques? Lee M 19:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised at the extremely negative "consensus" in the Critical Reaction section. This movie received 77% (out of 180 reviews) on Rotten Tomatoes, so shouldn't the reviews reflect this? Right now, there is only one truly positive review (AO Scott) out of seven. (IMO, most of the negative reviews missed the entire point of the film...)

HOW DARE THEY CRITICIZE THIS MOVIE THIS IS THE GREATEAST MOVIE EVER AND MATT STONE AND TREY PARKER ARE GENIUSES AND IF YOU DONT LIKE THIS MOVE THEN YOUR DUMB AND YOUR BUTT SMELLS AND YOU LIKE TO SMELL YOUR OWN BUTT

Shorter synopsis

I've shortened the synopsis, so we only tell about half of the story here. And removed as many of the gags as possible, so that maybe people can actually see them/hear them the way they are meant to. AlistairMcMillan 05:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones "tells about half of the story," but it is a more complete picture, spanning from the beginning of the movie to the end. We are not writing a Netflix review here, we don't have to stop in the middle. I do agree with you that the original plot summary was way too long, but your recent shortening appears indiscriminate. I've tried to restore it without bloating it too much. I think it is better to let the shortening take place in a series of gradual, minor edits.

Besides, the spoiler warning means something. Team America is a movie that I was only halfway interested in seeing, so I really don't care if a Wikipedia article gives away the ending. On the other hand, I'm not even going to take a look at (or even link to) the article on Star Wars Episode III. Anton Mravcek 00:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just about everything in the original plot summary is good stuff. It's just that some of it might belong in a different section. That's why I added a section entitled "Targets of Satire" (though perhaps there's a more standard title we could use). Robert Happelberg 22:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Says Who?

While the film deliberately does not name any American politicians (to avoid being pigeon-holed as simply a movie about the 2004 election)

Says who? Also, in regards to the section "Box office performance", again, says who? 207.74.196.20 20:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uhm, Matt and Trey? [1]

• TREY: There was a period where we thought about putting a Bush puppet in it...
• MATT: If we did Bush, we were going to do Kerry.
• TREY: Yeah, and it seemed that every time we tried to write scenes for it, it seemed to immediately let the audience off the hook because immediately, the entire movie, the statements it was making, the political side, was all about Bush or all about the last six months instead of being all about America.''

There are a bunch of interviews where they talk about this. AlistairMcMillan 21:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was because they're wimps, but that's just my opinion. So I added the words "according to Parker and Stone" to that sentence (I should've marked the edit minor). Del arte 20:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wimps? Bush and Kerry? Parker and Stone? All four? AlistairMcMillan 20:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Parker and Stone, they seem to be passive-aggressives. I've called Bush a draft-dodger, but I don't know about calling him a wimp. As for Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War hero, certainly does not deserve the label "wimp". Del arte 15:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, he's just a baby-killer.

What's with the editorial in the "Box office performance" section?

"...many expected Team America to debut at #1 in a generally slow box office weekend, as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 had several months earlier. Instead, the film shocked (http://nodq.com/misc/100043171.shtml) many by only making $12 million its first weekend, not only losing to the innocuous family film Shark Tale, but also a Billy Bob Thornton movie, Friday Night Lights."

Have you guys heard of demographics? Rated R-movies tend not to have a high box office returns. Guess what's the only rated R movie in the top 10 grossing films of last year? That's right it was Passion of the Christ. [2] Friday Night Lights might not be popular in the northern part of the United States. However, it was the most talked about movie in the south especially where I live in. (West Texas) In addition, the word "innocuous" (harm less) is such opinionated word for an encyclopedia article. Instead of giving reasons why people didn't go see it because of politics. How about some people mind spending their movie dollar on their interest?

BTW, I watched Team America the first day it came out and I haven't watched Friday Night Lights. --Anonymous Cow 03:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Legal disclaimer

I found funny that at the end the usual All persons ficticious disclaimer "All characters are ficticious. Similarity with real people is not intended" appeared. Yeah. --Error 00:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WHERE'S MOSCOW?

Neither Agra nor Moscow are actually featured nor they are even mentioned. However, the scene has Agra, with the Taj Mahal in the background. There's a shock, making a wind. The smoke in the bombing is from Moscow. None of the buildings of Moscow are seen.

What are you talking about? Alistair McMillan 20:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about neither Agra or Moscow, Alistair McMillan. Fernando Luis Ferrer Nieves, 27 April 2005. (UTC)

Cities or Places that are mentioned

• San Francisco, California
• Detroit, Michigan
• University of Nebraska, Nebraska

Xipod

"He succeeds, and a Xipod inside the dictator escapes in a tiny spacecraft.

Xipods are small creatures which resemble roaches. They live on the planet Xiron which is also inhabited by Balmacs who are giant bees. The Xipods and the Balmacs are at constant war. The Xipod inside Kim Jong Il had come to Earth to try to find a new home for the Xipods. Unfortunately, Alec Baldwin had failed him in every way and Kim Jong Il would now have to return to Xiron, his plan having failed. He anticipates that he will be punished by being thrown into the Pit of Cryrock."

An anonymous user claims that this is explained at the end of the soundtrack. I have the DVD and no mention is made of it. Can anyone else back this up? Barneygumble 21:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This does kind of sound like something Parker and Stone might come up with but the last track on the CD is "Mount, Rush, More". There is no dialogue in the track. And a search for xipod+"team america" on Google only gives one result that is talking about the Linux software xiPod. AlistairMcMillan 04:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Found it. A track called "You are worthless Alec Baldwin" that is supposed to play over the end credits. Definitely not on the soundtrack cd. [3] AlistairMcMillan 04:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed, "you are worthless Alec Baldwin" is the most beautiful song on there. It plays after the final credits on the DVD, at least on the DVD I rented from Amazon. Here are the lyrics: http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/teamamericaworldpolice/kimjongii.htm . That URL spells it as "Gyron" instead of "Xiron". Who knows. It sounds more like "Xiron" to me when I listen to it. I have it in MP3 form. If I can figure out how to do it, I'll load that onto Wikimedia. It's a 78-second clip.

The important thing here is this: In the movie, Kim Jong Il is portrayed as just a mean bad guy. That song changes everything. He is a member of a race that is losing a war on its home planet, and they will be wiped out if they don't find a new home. "That's what Earth was for", says the Xipod. He's a brave Xipod on a desperate mission to save his whole species from extinction. Oh yeah, that will involve destroying humans, but let's turn the perspective here. We wipe out several different species EVERY DAY just out of carelessness and stupidity. If our survival depended on it, do you think we would wipe out another sentient species? You bet! In fact some biologists think we already DID wipe out another intelligent species, namely neandrathals. So putting it in that perspective, Kim Jong Il is not the villain of this movie! That's why this part about Xipods is so important. The guy is not a roach, he's a heroic Xipod trying to save his species, in a way that is just what humans would do in the same situation.

Kim Jong Il is basically the main and most interesting (and certainly the most funny) character in this movie, so this is important stuff. And the way he sings this song sounds so mournful, you can't help but shift your sympathies when you hear it.

By jove, he's right. However, this Xipod thing deserve to be segregated. Any normal viewer will perceive it to be vandalism. Barneygumble 03:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If we do include this, we don't need to go into excessive detail. Personally I'd leave it out. Leave some stuff for people to discover when they view the actual film. AlistairMcMillan 03:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps it's Matt & Trey having a bit of a laugh. It's a footnote to the DVD, but plays no integral part of the movie. It's confusing in the article. Barneygumble 13:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The concept resebels the script of the final episode of Star Trek The Next Generation Series 1. Stijn Calle 17:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Seems a little POV to only include Amercian ones. Just a comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Which foreign reviewer would you consider most representative of the opinion of foreign movie critics? Robert Happelberg 22:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

real life targets

"Aside from Kim Jong-il, real life politicians are spared satire." - Hans Blix is also listed as a politician on his wikipage, and the UNO is specifically targetted (probably the only named political body in the movie). (clem 09:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC))

Good point. Most people probably think he's some sort of scientist. But as a "diplomat", he certainly qualifies as a "politician". I've changed the line in the article accordingly. Robert Happelberg 22:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

UNO?--Greasysteve13 06:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thought

There must be loads of Merkins out there who missed the satire entirely and thought this was a bona-fide pro-Merkin-world-domination movie. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Lisa and Sarah

Does anyone agree with me that Lisa looks very like Loretta Swit, who played "Hot Lips" Houlihan in MASH? Are Lisa and Sarah intended to look like real people? They both look extremely familiar to me, but I can't place who Sarah looks like. If the resemblance is intentional, it should be mentioned in the article. Adam 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the 'making of the puppets' section on the DVD, there were no direct relations between puppets' appearances and the appearances of other actors. They were made to be almost iconically generic - exemplifying very classic 'American' stereotypes. While Loretta Switt may bear a passing resemblance to Lisa, Lisa is a very generic blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman, and a caricature besides - chances are people are going to see resemblances due to the exaggeration of her features. The same is true of the other team members - Gary looks uncannily like 'Someone You Should Know'. I suspect it relates to the uncanny valley somehow. 203.36.217.32 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kim's Motivation

I've added a bit at the end of the plot summary about the Kim-roach, but I admit I don't know the correct spelling for the roach's race, their bee-like rivals or their home planet. Can someone with the DVD check the closed-captioning for official spellings and correct as needed? BryanEkers 08:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the spelling and corrected it. His accent makes it hard to guess the spelling. FudgeRusket 21:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Just Wondering

Why is Matt Daymon portrayed the way he is in the movie?

Try his article (Matt_Damon#Trivia) --Greasysteve13 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Originally, Matt Damon was going to be portrayed as very intelligent and articulate, while Ben Affleck was, at one point, going to be the retard. Samuel L Jackson was supposed to be parodied as a man living in his own movies, thinking he was a real hero. But when Damon's puppet came out looking dimwitted, Trey and Matt decided to portray him as such. --Jonathan.Bruce 07:21 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

TABak user derka derka derka!

Cracked myself up on the text.Chernicky 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Source?

This paragraph really needs a source: "Interestingly, the film proved immensely popular among actual members of the US military, who found it easy to identify with Team America, the film's patriotic themes, and its criticism of the War on Terror."

Concept Section

This concept section is just all over the place. I suggest cutting it severely. Satchfan 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Critical Reaction

How can this article not include the politics behind Critical Reaction? Critics had more to say about this film than whether it was funny or not.

Fag!

In the "Targets of satire" section, I changed "…the word 'fag,' a derogatory term for homosexual men," to "…the word 'fag,' an often-derogatory term for homosexual men," because I don't think it's always meant derogatorily. At least among gay men themselves, it can be a term of endearment—something like the word 'nigger' among black Americans.

Of course, if others come to some sort of consensus against this, feel free to change it.-Dan 04:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, to those of us who live outside of the world that is America, Over here in old blighty Fag is interchangeable with a cigarette. Help plz 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's suppose to be F.A.G. Toxic Ninja 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality/Appropriate?

I think that this article has some issues that need correction, but I wasn't sure so I figured I'd leave a note here as well as a template. In much of the article, you see things like "creepy", which could or could not be, but the rest of it has many pretty obvious opinions (just read through it). I also saw where it said someone "sucked his cock" and I was wondering, is this really needed? Maybe something more like "performed oral sex". Just wondering.

____

I don't have the DVD handy, but I believe it's quot-ated from the film itself. It should still be changed, I think. --Parcequilfaut 21:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spotsworth (sp?) said it both ways, outside the theater at the beginning he said "suck my cock" and at the end he said "preform oral sex" Toxic Ninja 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad Wording

There were two sentences that stand out---

"(In fact, a poorly-received feature film version of Thunderbirds was released the same year as Team America)"

This makes it seem like there was a movie version of Thunder Birds released under the title "Team America"

" (including a song about having a montage, a modified form of which appeared in South Park)."

The Montage song was originally in the episode Asspen, and was adapted for Team America. Not the other way as is suggested. I'm changing these accordingly.--Atticus2020 03:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lavender Mafia

"The Film Actors Guild (FAG) satirizes both the absolutist Left-ism of Hollywood celebrities and the effete-ness of the Lavender Mafia which pulls the strings behind the scenes in Hollywood."

I'm not entirely sure about this, but am I wrong that the film makes no reference, direct or oblique, to a gay conspiracy running Hollywood? Even the Wiki page on the Lavender Mafia seems only to link it to the Catholic church, nothing about the entertainment industry. Also the phrasing here makes it seem distinctly factual that the Lavander Mafia does indeed pull he strings behind the scenes of Hollywood, which is a little paranoid sounding?

Gary Johnston assumes Spottswoode is from Hollywood and wants Gary to perform oral sex on him

Toby Keith/"Freedom Isn't Free"

Should the article include a reference to how "Freedom Isn't Free" (the "parody country music" listed in the article as playing behind a certain scene) is a direct parody of country artist Toby Keith, whose work has caused some controversy because of perceived jingoism?

I'd like more on the music in this film, anyway. --Parcequilfaut 21:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Expand Targets of Satire, Remove Critical Reaction

The music indeed is brilliant and hardly mentioned in this article. Also the whole article and especially the 'targets of satire' section concentrates on attacks on the ideologies of left and right which I think is secondary to some bigger themes; from sending-up the whole action film genre with their generic character types, love interests, music, dialogue etc to the false piety of ill informed rich actors promoting green or naive policies, often costly, to the poor masses - and the notion that celebrities should have such influence on world opinion anyways.

And just get rid of the "Critical reaction" reaction section. Mere opinion of journalist critics shouldn't elevated to 'analysis' and be present in an encyclopaedia, especially when most of them miss so many points and misinterpret the rest. --Shadeofblue 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read the section entitled "Critical Reaction" There is NOT ONE citation to a verifiable source for these opinions. Whose Wikipedian opinion is that??? I'm just curious. It is so blantant and amazing that it has been in the article for so long. -----Getaway 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Without even seeing your comments I dived in and removed that section. You are of course completely correct - It was a load of vague nonsense. And who says the film goes easy on the political right? Only a total moron could fail to see that the movie parodies Conservative warmongering machismo. Beeromatic 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What should be NPOVized?

Can anyone specify the dispute here? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it, Ikiroid. Why the tag? -- LoudMouth 20:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything blatantly POV here. Somebody brought up the use of the word "creepy", but that's really an issue of needing a citation. Unless anybody has any specific issues here, I propose removing the tag. Infinitenoodles 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll let these comments sit a little while. If there aren't any objections, I'm taking the tag off.

What hasn't anyone read the section entitled "Critical Reaction"??? Where is the citation for these opinions??? Unless someone can give me a citation for that section then I think it needs to be removed and later replaced with references to real, actual movie critics instead of the opinion of some anon Wikipedian. --Getaway 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Limo is a Lamborghini Diablo, not a Countach

Spottswoode's flying limo is a Lamborghini Diablo, not a Lamborghini Countach. You can tell be the vehicles basically rounder shape. Suggest adding a picture of the limo to stop confusion. --Votekyle

"All parts of the human anatomy?"

"The NC-17 version of this film features a 27-second uncut and uncensored sex scene, which depicts Gary and Lisa in many sexual positions without any sort of censoring or blurring, meaning that all parts of the human anatomy are visible at all times."

Errrr, I think this is a bit inaccurate, since the dolls aren't actually fully anatomically correct. Gary doesn't appear to have anything at all between his legs. Lisa does have a hole between her legs briefly visible in one shot, but upon closer inspection the hole does not appear to be her genitalia, but rather is merely the way the doll was constructed, perhaps relating to her leg joints (or possibly it's the hole they used in the scat scene.) While the scene is definitely explicit, I don't think that nipples alone qualify as "all parts of the human anatomy." Also, the uncut DVD is actually unrated, not NC-17. I'm editting the article to reflect this.--Lode Runner

Entirely with marionettes

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)

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)

The "panthers" weren't marionettes, either, incidentally. BryanEkers 21:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does "valmorphanize" come from?

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)

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)

Driver

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)

"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)

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

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).

Gary resembles Alien's cyborg when vommiting

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).

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)

• It's possible, but it's just as likely to be an homage to the Sam Peckinpah's "Salad Days" skit from Monty Python's Flying Circus. Matt and Trey are known to be Monty Python fans. Edeans 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps Mr Creosote (how could I forget Mr Creosote?). Edeans 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Budget, local and worldwide gross

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)

North Korean Melody or Medley?

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)

Rolverdeling?

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)

Thunderbirds?

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

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)

Removal

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.).

Commentary?

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)

Trivia?

"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?

The trivia section is awful, much of it is uncited or irrelevant, its the worst I've seen on wikipedia. How's about we dump some of it in the next few days if it can't be cleaned up? Alastairward 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Puppeteering

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)

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)

"Targets of Satire" <> "Individuals Parodied"

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)

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

Critical reaction section?

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)

Team America should redirect to this article

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)

NPOV Tag

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)

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)