LOOK AT ME…I'M REALLY SMART!!!
-
Al_Scarface_Capone — 15 years ago(August 04, 2010 12:15 PM)
I don't remember having trouble with the dialog, but I saw Network a few years ago.
However, if this sort of "trade talk" realism annoys you, I suggest that you never watch Primer. If you thought this was bad, Primer was written and directed (as well as everything else) by a former engineer, and all the technical stuff in the film is almost 100% accurate, and it is sci-fi.
"You gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?" -
jmbwithcats — 15 years ago(August 21, 2010 04:16 PM)
I didn't have any problem with the dialogue. Maybe he just was smart.
www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=6751188
www.kittysafe.net
Mews, Poetry, Ideas -
SpikeHat — 15 years ago(August 23, 2010 05:13 PM)
This is one of the best-written films IMO.
Network
contains language that
is
indicative of folks who more than likely have degrees. Why..? Well, journalists are paid to work with words, not do manual labor or manipulate physical items. As such, aren't these the people you'd expect to have large vocabularies, and to enjoy expanded wordplay? And so what if there's ten-dollar words in a film? I'm not afraid of
learning
something from watching a movie.
No, Chayefsky wasn't trying to show off; check out
Marty
, a classic, well-written script that doesn't require a dictionary. For an intellectual contrast, there's Chayefsky's
Altered States
which goes over lots of heads but that's got more to do with Ken Russell (he's crazy). -
jmbwithcats — 15 years ago(August 23, 2010 05:22 PM)
I am somewhat saddened by the low rating Altered States receives on IMDb. I rate it far higher.
www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=6751188
www.kittysafe.net
Mews, Poetry, Ideas -
clovis27 — 15 years ago(October 26, 2010 11:26 AM)
I can't think of a single example of dialogue that seemed too difficult, I am very surprised to hear of a PhD (if that is true) having issues with this movie.
Instead of having to dumb down movies for the "average Joe," maybe people should simply be expected to rise up to the level of the film. I never agree with this notion that everything must be catered to the average consumer. -
Rupert__Pupkin — 15 years ago(October 26, 2010 11:48 AM)
I suggest going back and watching it again. It's obvious that the writer has an impressive command of the English language and has a gift for colorful prose. However, no one talks at a lightning-quick pace while using 5-syllable words in every sentence and speaking in complex metaphors and hyperbole, all while making a beautiful and eloquent point that touches on poetry, philosophy, and politics. This happened time and time again and came across as contrived.
-
paudarco4cancer — 15 years ago(November 02, 2010 12:26 PM)
I always hated studying Shakespeare in school. I could not understand old English. We seemed to take ten minutes studying every line.
Rupert__Pupkin could you please give an example of a word or some of the words in Network that you had difficulty with ? -
Owlwise — 15 years ago(November 03, 2010 06:58 AM)
You're assuming that every film must have dialogue that's "realistic."
This film is indeed "speaking in complex metaphors and hyperbole, all while making a beautiful and eloquent point that touches on poetry, philosophy, and politics." It's known as literate writing. There used to be an audience for that sort of thing and there still is, if much diminished these days. Not everything has to be geared to the lowest common denominator!
The rich, poetic dialogue is one of the great pleasures of this film, as well as one of the aspects that makes it a great film in the first place. -
Rupert__Pupkin — 15 years ago(November 04, 2010 01:07 PM)
Who says that film writing has to be written for the lowest common denominator? I'm not sure why you need to take things to the extreme. According to you, if a script is not written with the complexity of "Network", then it's on par with "Dude, Where's My Car?"
I love great writing as much as the next guy (probaby more in fact), but when every character in a movie speaks like a philosophy professor on crack, it detracts from the realism and takes me out of the movie. -
Owlwise — 15 years ago(November 05, 2010 06:52 AM)
Did you ever hear a group of well-read, educated people talking? The dialogue in this film isn't as "unrealistic" as you seem to think. American culture has changed in the past few decades as well once upon a time, plenty of people would have found the dialogue quite acceptable. In fact, they would have relished it for its poetic, literate quality; if anything, it would have taken them MORE into the film.
In any case, "realism" isn't the only mode of art. You need to expand your horizons. -
Rupert__Pupkin — 15 years ago(November 09, 2010 08:42 AM)
Ha ha! So because it happened in a movie, it MUST be true! Hilarious! I suppose the dialogue in "Clerks" is also realistic. Just like the dialogue in "Pulp Fiction." After all, it DID happen in a movie. Ha ha! What a dolt.
-
beamgra — 15 years ago(January 26, 2011 01:20 AM)
Why does the OP try to stir up controversy and distract us from the main theme of the film: that huge conglomerates own you, that they've got you by the balls. The one eyed God that is Television has you. Your leaders are bought and paid for year by year.. You buy into the same left/right sideshow while faceless entities slowly extract your liberties and freedoms until they sneak up on you with the final checkmate. The film's message is more relevant today that it was when the damn thing was made