Talk:The Contender (2000 film)

Neutrality challenge

The following is the section that I've entered a POV challenge, with the questionable language in bold:

The film has been the subject of some controversy, as some critics view it as liberal propaganda. The accusation stems from the fact that the President and Senator Hanson, the primary protagonists, are both liberal Democrats, and the primary antagonist is the Republican Runyon, played by Oldman. The controversy overlooks the obvious fact that Hathaway, a Democrat, is a criminal, and Webster, another Democrat, allies with Oldman's character, although Webster eventually returns to the President's side. Additionally, Hanson's father is a Republican who receives favourable treatment. Nevertheless, Oldman, who is a conservative, criticized the final product.

If one actually watches the movie, it is revealed that Senator Hanson has broken no laws. Allegations were made she was part of a threesome while in college -- a sorority-hazing type of thing, if I recall correctly. However, as Senator Hanson was single and above the age of consent, I fail to see how characterizing her as "a criminal" is:

Accurate in terms of the plot of the movie
Appropriate, as the whole point of the film wasn't "did she or didn't she?", but rather "is it appropriate to ask that sort of question to anyone, regardless of gender?" That is, if Senator Hanson was a male, what he did in college would not be an issue. Yet, because Senator Laine Hanson is a female, somehow what she (allegedly) did in college somehow affects her ability to take the second-highest political post in the United States
Neutral, as it is revealed that Senator Hanson didn't even engage in the sexual act in the first place.

I suggest rewriting the "Plot summary" section of this article accordingly.

--Micahbrwn 06:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the author of that section. It is important to note that I did not say Senator Hanson was a criminal. Far from it, I said Governor Hathaway was a criminal- he is, indeed, arrested for negligible homicide. I have edited it to make that point clearer. -anon

Neutrality

I removed one of the negative reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, because with all those quotes from Oldman in the Reaction section, that section was beginning to tilt too far to the negative. I also removed the counter-arguments about Hathaway being a criminal etc., because that leans a little too close to original research, I wrote that part as a newbie and to the best of my knowledge it's not a widespread argument. I think one paragraph on Ebert and the Oscars and one paragraph on Oldman will suffice for balance. CanadianCaesar 01:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the negative reviews also be included in the reviews of the film? It seems that the Oldman business is mostly about the behind-the-scenes machinations of the politics of the movie, rather than criticism against the film itself. 24.59.3.83 (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Errors"

The error section was removed because it was factually inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.31.246.236 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

loyalty

I added loyalty here:

His opposition to the nominee might not be motivated by sexism but rather by genuine concerns about her competence and loyalty, as well as a desire for revenge on the President.

because Lurie explicitly states in the commentary on the DVD that one of the primary motivations for Gary Oldman's character is that Joan Allen's character is a former Republican switched to the Democrats, and Oldman's character feels that she is not loyal as a VP should be. --203.129.59.46 06:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

The previous text said "Senator Hanson was an atheist, a fact that was laid out in the beginning of the film yet never came back to haunt her candidacy as it might have in the real world." This description was misleading, the Hanson character addressed the atheism issue eloquently and patriotically in one of the highlights of the film near its end. In a sense, she addressed this issue by "heading it off at the pass." Would a real life candidate have gotten more flack over this issue? Perhaps. But the claim that the issue "never came back" was inaccurate.

Cfs-news (talk)

Fixed up "Reception" section

The source being used for most of that section was the Media Research Center, which is a conservative group that is dedicated to "finding liberal bias in the media." This may have something to do with why the section kept getting challenges based on WP:NPOV, as most of the section seemed to be based on that source, even though its conclusions contradict pretty much everything else I'm finding about the controversy (for example, an actual issue with Oldman saying his issue was with Lurie, not the studio, which I added as a source). I eliminated the MRC reference and much of the content which was based on it, as well as a number of quotes which I couldn't find in any source. I tried to re-write it with a more neutral POV, though I'm worried that I may have gone a bit too far in the opposite direction. What does everyone think? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]