Talk:Network (1976 film)

message: Plot synopsis is inaccurate.
152.3.183.223 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot synopsis needs work

message: According to Joe Eszterhas in his book “The Devil’s Guide to Hollywood,” Stanley Kubrick wanted to direct “Network,” but Paddy Chayefsky objected him. Does anyone know if this is a true fact?
:How do you objected someone?
::Use him at the end of a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.251.225 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahahaha! Very funny, 24.202.251.225—HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stanley Kubrick

message: In the trivia section it says "Dunaway and Finch have no scenes together, despite being arguably the main protagonist and antagonist of the film.", though it is unclear as to who is the primary antagonist, and who is the primary protagonist. In fact, the ordering suggests that Dunaway is the protagonist, and Finch is the Antagonist, though I would argue quite the opposite.--68.248.33.145 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is antagonist/protagonist?

message: Having not seen the film, I can't correct the plot as described, but it seems to contradict itself or at least have a tenuous grasp of how things work. Here's the part I'm having trouble with:
:As the story opens, the audience learns that longtime network news anchor Howard Beale (played by Peter Finch), who hosts the UBS Evening News, has been fired due to low ratings. The following night, Beale announces live on-air...
Wait, he was fired but still allowed to go live on the air? This defies belief. Then:
:...Beale announces live on-air that he will commit suicide by getting a gun and "blowing his brains out" during an upcoming broadcast...UBS immediately fires him after this incident...
Hold on, wasn't he already fired? This just doesn't make sense. First of all, when an on-air personality is fired, they're done, they don't appear on the air again, they're gone. Now, if he was asked to resign—technically a firing but with the allowance to finish out some term of employment with grace—then that is what should be said. If what the writer meant was that his show had been cancelled, or that he was being replaced as anchor, that's not the same thing as being fired (he's still employed by the network, just in a different capacity), and shouldn't be described in that way. As for "immediately" firing someone who has already been fired...that just makes no sense at all. Some rewriting is needed here, the meaning is unclear. --Canonblack 15:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing plot description

message: I thought it was "airwaves", as I'm sure most people do, but the script  confirms the word is in fact "airways". -- Gridlock Joe 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ! Maikel (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Mad prophet of the airways"

message: It says that this film won 3 out of the 5 acting awards. My understanding is that there are only 4 (best and supporting actor and actress). Is there a fifth that I'm unaware of? Thestorm042 11:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting awards

message: Might I suggest replacing satirical with prophetic in the opening sentence.
83.70.28.138 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm really sure where on this Talk pg to add this lil piece of triv... maybe here, maybe it's own section.. ah, Peter Finch appeared on Johnny Carson Tonight show.. i dont know the exact date, i suppose to promote the movie. (Recall the nation had just been thru the resignation of VP Spiro Agnew, then Dick Nixon's lying to the Amer public re: Watergate, his hatred for the media and HIS resig and subseq pardon by the Ford admins.) Of course they discussed the in/famous line, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore" and.. Peter then told Johnny.. 'yes, and i really DO feel that way.' maybe not that exactly, but... Peter was dead the next day.. i think 'they' offed him. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:C5EE:5E76:BC94:AFB2 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Why the spacing and the notice not to remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.9.48 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed it. 24.171.9.48 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spacing before TOC

message: i added this because i thought that seeing a list of similar films can be a great tool to see similar movies with the same sort of ideas. someone with more time can insert links and improve upon the idea?
--24.143.52.4 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: similar related films

message: I suggest revising the sentence:
:Revealing himself to be quite as mad as Beale, Jensen delivers...
In the 2006 DVD releasehttp://www.amazon.com/Network-Two-Disc-Special-Faye-Dunaway/dp/B000CNESU8, there is commentary by Sidney Lumet. At Jensen's speach, Lumet says: "Here's the payoff! This is what Paddy wanted to say." Paddy meant every word. Jensen was not mad. An alternative might be:
:Jensen knows that it is far better to turn Beale and keep him on TV than to fire him. To that end, Jensen, who "can sell anything", in a spell-binding monolog, sells to Beale the idea that "there are no nations...", "There is no democracy." That there is only the "dominion of dollars." And "The world is a business."
Magrathea78 (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: [Original edit]'s not only POV, it's demonstrably wrong as a matter of commentary [above, others] and reading comprehension. Jensen is selling to Howard the way Howard understands and consciously mimics Howard's mannerisms and echoes/replaces the voice of G-d Howard heard before his populist turn. Makes him a good salesman for a valid way of looking at the world, not a maniac.—LlywelynII 13:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jensen Mad is not Neutral Point of View

message: These boxes appear in other articles so I don't feel that I should tamper with them, but they don't link to external sites. I also feel that the information is a bit ambiguous in this format and wonder if it should simply be included in the main article; for example "Network was the first film since 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' to win both Best Actor and Best Actress at the Academy Awards."OtterDW (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links - "Awards" Boxes

message: Howard's "Mad As Hell" speech has become so ubiquitous in pop culture that references to it have really become non-notable. Does anyone else feel that—if we keep them at all—we can pare back the details of the "Mad As Hell" references? We really don't need the whole report—that "in the 2008 film, The Onion Movie, the anchorman, Norm Archer says the phrase out loud." Couldn't we get by with a tabular or other quick listing of films, TV shows, books and music that make reference?—HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't everybody answer all at once now.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think we need to list any references. We just need one reference to state that the phrase "mad as hell" is prevalent in popular culture. Maybe we could explore it further, but not with indiscriminate examples. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many "Mad As Hell" references? 

message: Did Chayefsky ever explain why he so disliked All in the Family? The film's several negative references are startling, considering that the show was the sort of satirical, edgy programming one would not expect from a major network. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''All in the Family''

message: “its struggle with poor ratings”
“its struggle with poor ratings”
I don't understand the need to hide the "Nielsen" precision. According to Network (film)#Critical reception, Network (film)#Awards and honors or Rotten Tomatoes 90%, it can't be said “its struggle with poor ratings”. The film only deals with poor audience. Not all the ratings are poor. Why adding height characters to the wiki-code to hide precision and make a false affirmation?
In reaction to this diff, I'm ready to debate on the meaning of too simplified sentences that loosing the reality of facts.
Lacrymocéphale 22:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I remember, there was no specificity in the film about "Neilsen ratings", just the UBS network's bad ratings in general. In fact, the film ends with the voiceover narrator saying (paraphrasing) "This was the story of Howard Beale, the first man to die from bad ratings," not "Neilsen ratings". Not only is "Neilsen ratiings" false precision, but the sentence is more awkward with the addition of the extra word. No offense intended, but it seems as if your command of English may not be up to hearing the difference (i.e. "Why adding height characters to the wiki-code to hide precision and make a false affirmation?" is not an English sentence, and I have no idea what it means.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have reverted my change. Please do not do this again; instead see WP:BRD. You were Bold in your edit, I Reverted it, and now we Discuss. You do not revert again, that is the beginning of edit warring, which is not allowed.In looking over your comment above, and your edit summaries, I do not believe that you actually understand correctly the meaning of the sentence in the article. The reference to "ratings" has nothing whatsoever to do with the film that is the subject of this article – so your reference to Rotten Tomatoes and the "Awards and honors" section of the article is meaningless – it has to do with the bad ratings of the fictional network in the film, which is the situation which provokes all the action in the film. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember the word "Neilsen" being uttered at any point in the film, only "ratings". In 1976, the Arbitron company, a competitor of Neilsen, also provided television ratings to the networks and agencies, so to specify Neilsen ratings is false precision.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that I've completely misunderstood the whole sentence. I've read "it struggles with poor ratings"... face palm. Lacrymocéphale 23:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor ratings or poor Nielsen ratings? 

message: I was in a scuffle with another user months ago about this particular section. Would it be best to condense it, or possibly remove it entirely? This section focuses way too much on the ownership changes between MGM and United Artists following Network's release, which in my opinion, has absolutely nothing to do with the film itself. Freshh (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I don't see how tracking the ownership changes of the entire MGM library is necessary here. Maybe if someone had purchased the individual film from the studio, or something unusual like that. Trivialist (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disgree, it's part and parcel of the rights situation for this film. Could be trimmed, but definitely shouldn't be removed wholesale without a firm consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the rights situation doesn't really have anything to do with the film. It's not like the film has ever been locked away in a vault and kept from view by a later rightsholder. Trivialist (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of eliminating the section as well as the legal status of the film is barely relevant to anything a reader would care about - it's more relevant to the companies involved than the film. In any event, as it stands now, the material is unsourced. There are only two sources in the section. One is to the copyright record, which is a primary source and couldn't possibly support the three paragraphs; besides, the link doesn't work. The other is the book, and it cites to page 172. There's nothing on page 172 that supports any of the complex material. It just talks about MGM's success in the 1970s and says that one of them was Network, which was "co-produced by MGM with UA" ( - I couldn't figure out a way to jump to page 172 - so click on page 176 and then back up - Google Books is a mess). We can continue this discussion about the relevance of the section, but I'm removing it pending (a) the outcome and (b) if the consensus is to keep any of it, it must be reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

text:  Just to give a specific example of what I was referring to above: the rights situation for the RKO films Double Harness, Living on Love, and A Man to Remember, One Man's Journey, Rafter Romance, Stingaree is unique and led to the films being effectively "lost" until recently, so it's worth noting. The machinations of big corporate mergers are less important to individual films. Trivialist (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights section