LOOK AT ME…I'M REALLY SMART!!!
-
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
-
erikriveros — 15 years ago(January 05, 2011 11:56 AM)
so in actuality, and where i've been mistaken all these years, is that low brow, highly simplified, mono syllabic words is actually a sign of good writing as well as showing the author's own self assurance b/c he doesn't need to use the big words..
but the writers who know how to cleverly string together more complex words in oscar award winning scripts are ignorant and suffer from low egos?
got it.
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it