Talk:Network (1976 film)

Plot synopsis needs work

Plot synopsis is inaccurate.

152.3.183.223 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Release date

The Network article, which used to discuss this movie, claimed the film was "released in 1977". Someone might want to check which date is correct.

That article summarized the film as being "about the on-air mental breakdwon of a newscaster and how that breakdown makes him a celebrity."

--Ryguasu 16:46 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

According to imdb it was first released in New York in 27 November 1976.

Stanley Kubrick

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)

Hahahahaha! Very funny, 24.202.251.225—HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is antagonist/protagonist?

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)

OK then <pedantry>This would be an ecumenical matter, as to the application of the terms, if they are applied to 'the Network' she is clearly the pro and Finch the an. In terms of major and minor acting roles Dunaways perspective is followed closely whereas Finch less so.</pedantry> 83.70.28.138 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Holden is the actual protagonist of this film, Finch is the comic relief and catalyst rolled into one. If it weren't for Max's long standing journalistic integrity, Dunaway would have nothing to rebel against. 'Howard Beale' is the jester, almost a Greek style chorus in this film; while he steals the show, he's somewhat incidental to the actual theme of the film (the dehumanization of the broadcasting industry). Gyoza1138 09:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing plot description

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)

"Mad prophet of the airways"

I thought it was "airwaves", as I'm sure most people do, but the script [1] confirms the word is in fact "airways". -- Gridlock Joe 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

! Maikel (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Acting awards

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)

There are 4 acting categories, but two actors in the film were nominated for the same award, so they won 3 of their 5 nominations, not categories. 68.101.92.72 11:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Might I suggest replacing satirical with prophetic in the opening sentence. 83.70.28.138 03:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree Gloriamarie 08:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Spacing before TOC

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)

I've gone ahead and removed it. 24.171.9.48 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

similar related films

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)

i deleted this because it's completely irrelevant and is a matter of opinion, not fact and I believe constitutes OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.174.25 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Jensen Mad is not Neutral Point of View

I suggest revising the sentence:

Revealing himself to be quite as mad as Beale, Jensen delivers...

In the 2006 DVD release, 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)

[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)

References

External Links - "Awards" Boxes

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)

Plot Summary misses point of Television as Propaganda Force

The plot summary is missing the greatest point: the power of TV and the danger of letting the most powerful source of propaganda fall into the wrong hands. Beale warns us of TV's power of illusion and propaganda. After Beale stops the CCA/Saudi merger, Jensen, instead of firing Beale, persuades Beale to deliver the "corporate cosmology of Arthur Jensen" to the American People - "because you're on Television, Dummy."

The setup for this thesis is the first "Howard Beale Show" with the speech beginning "Edward George Ruddy died today."

Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. ... This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers. It is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless world. Woe is us if it falls into the hands of the wrong people.

That’s why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA, ... And when the 12th largest company in the world controls the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network.

The above warning to America is manifest when Arthur Jensen does not fire Beale, but instead turns Beale to Jensen's purpose and point of view.

I started as a salesman, Mr Beale. .... They say I can sell anything. I’d like to try to sell something to you.

Jensen then launches into the famous "Primal Forces of Nature" speech containing the key line

It is the international system of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet.

Sold on Jensen's world view, the next night Beale begins his "dying democracy" message on TV. Ratings plummet. Hackett goes to Jensen and pleads to take Beale off the air. Hackett returns with the bad news (that confirms Jensen's purpose of his meeting with Beale).

Mr Jensen thinks Howard Beale is bringing a very important message to the American people. ... He didn’t care if it was the number-one show or the 50th. He didn’t really care if the Beale show lost money. He wants Howard Beale on the air, and he wants him kept on.

Magrathea78 (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Magrathea78. I'm not sure the "Plot Summary" is the right spot for that discussion. With a script as rich as Network's, we really need added section(s) addressing themes, motifs and contentions of Cheyefsky and the characters. The best example I know on Wikipedia is the Featured Article on Tender Mercies. It seems to me that Network has at least enough "meat" on its screenplay to support a similarly developed article.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree, in a way. There are a number of points being made here regarding the plot summary and having just seen the movie I sympathise with them greatly. The plot summary of the article is imbalanced it seems to me. The first three-quarters of the movie (at least) are summed up in the first quarter of the summary and this imo is what causes the distortion. I agree that the themes could be discussed in sections, after the summary and, PERHAPS, this could be good, though it might be hard to keep them on-topic. However the plot summary needs substantial rewriting imo. Sadly I saw the movie on TV so don't have a copy I could use to summarise, but I would suggest these are the bullet points of the plot:

"old-school ethical TV station struggling for ratings; takeover battle with corporate; TV station news section shafted by board; news lead has a breakdown; his resignation breakdown live on TV generates a huge spike in ratings; tv-obsessed young woman with a father fixation makes a pass at news head and takes over news dept; news head resigns; news head separates from wife and moves in with her; news lead's ratings for his exortations to revolt continue to rise; woman starts drama docs featuring latest terrorist atrocioties; terrorists become contracted to station for a series; news lead "outs" corporate corruption of the board; board president evangelises him to serve a universal capitalism that supllants nations and identities; the message depresses ratings for show; ex news head walks out on woman; editorial board agree to assassinate news lead live on tv; ratings for assasination episode soar; the end."

It's a brilliant movie and it would be easier to call it prescient if it wasn't describing such current and present history. LookingGlass (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The plot section is and should be a straightforward presentation of the story. Anything else to be discussed should be in another section and must be referenced with a citation from a reliable source. The plot section is supported by the film itself, but only to the extent of being straightforward description. It cannot contain any interpretation or analysis. Anything that strays from description must be sourced or it will be removed as WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Too many "Mad As Hell" references?

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)

Don't everybody answer all at once now.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

All in the Family

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)

I don't have a quote from Chayefsky, but this monologue from the movie might be a clue: Beale rants on his show, "If you want truth, go to God, go to your guru, go to yourself because that's the only place you'll ever find any real truth! But, man, you're never going to get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear. We lie like hell! We'll tell you Kojak always gets the killer, and nobody ever gets cancer in Archie Bunker's house. And no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don't worry: just look at your watch -- at the end of the hour, he's going to win."

..."nobody ever gets cancer in Archie Bunker's house" may have referenced an actual episode of All in the Family: "Edith's Christmas Story", from 1973, where Edith is concerned about a lump in her breast ... which turns out to be a non-cancerous cyst. Just1thing (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Poor ratings or poor Nielsen ratings?

“its struggle with poor ratings”
“its struggle with poor [[Nielsen ratings|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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tim Robbins

I can see that IMDB lists him as an uncredited assassin, but Tim Robbins would've just been ~18 at the time of filming for Network. Are we sure about this from well-referenced sources? [DVD commentary, book of the movie, &c.]—LlywelynII 14:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It was an unsourced claim here, and as I just noted in my edit summary, I was just listening to Robbins being interviewed by Little Steven on the radio and Robbins says that it is not true. So I removed it. 99.192.81.79 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From Roger Ebert: "(If you look closely, you can spot a young Tim Robbins as a revolutionary assassin.)" ([2]). The IP's "source" cannot be used - it is WP:OR. The Chicago Sun-Times and Ebert himself are reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what counts as a "source". An internationally broadcast radio programme is a legitimate "source" of information. Just because one cannot link to it does not make it not a "source". There are lots of legitimate "sources" that cannot be linked to. But in a couple of days I will be able to provide a link to the broadcast of the show as they are all archived online (and are available usually by the Wednesday after broadcast). I would also add that putting a "warning" (level 2, no less!) on my talk page because you disagreed with my "source" actually being a "source", when you initially reverted the information without providing any source whatsoever does not assume good faith.99.192.78.107 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, the only reliable source we have is from Ebert. If you can later point to the broadcast, we can reevaluate, although a self-published source doesn't necessarily trump a reliable secondary source. Based on this discussion, though, I agree with you that my warning was harsh. I would have reverted it myself, but you've already blanked your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for the reply. Firstly, you say that "a self-published source doesn't necessarily trump a reliable secondary source", but that is irrelevant in this case. The statement that I most recently added was merely that he has said that he was not in the film, which a "self-published" source is by definition 100% authoritative about.

Secondly, I should point out that it is just happenstance that the radio broadcast will be archived online (soon) so I can link to it. But even if it were never made available online it would still count as a valid source. Wikipedia's guideline says, "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)." An international radio broadcast certainly has been made available to the public. So the only question is now the content of the source. Well, if I were to link to a print interview with Tim Robbins where he said, "I was not in that film" there would be no question that it counts as a source, but him saying it in a radio interview is no different. No different unless you count the fact that it cannot be linked to as a relevant difference, but that is not Wikipedia's standard of what counts. So your most recent reversals of my edits are not justified But there is no point in going back and forth on it until your standard of what counts as a source is met (as opposed to Wikipedia's standard, which has already been met). I'll just post it again in a couple of days when the broadcast is online. 99.192.78.107 (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Originally, you just took out the material. It was later that you qualified the assertion. I don't completely disagree with you about the source issue. I just have a significant problem with using a broadcast as a source without more indication that the editor is interpreting the source correctly (and, believe me, I'm not accusing you of bad faith, I'm just speaking generally). So, for example, if you cited the broadcast, could also cite approximately what time during the broadcast Robbins said something, and you could quote him, that would go a long way to showing that it's reliable. In any event, as you can see below, I'm willing to go along with Ken's plan, so this becomes more academic than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Because Robbins is alive, a fact regarding him which has conflicting sources becomes a BLP issue, so I have removed the note per WP:BLPREMOVE, which says:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

Since we have a report that Robbins says he wasn't in it, the material is, by definition, "contentious", and falls under this rule. Please do not restore the material until we have rock-solid sourcing one way or the other: the article does not suffer appreciably from not having this one tidbit in it while we attempt to sort things out.

A reminder that the 3RR rules does not apply when editing to enforce WP:BLPREMOVE, but it does to those attempting to restore poorly sourced material to a BLP article; I, personally, have seen editors get blocked for edit-warring under those circumstances, so the best use of everyone's energy here is to firm up the sourcing rather than continuing to revert and counter revert. Let's keep the information out of the article until such time as everyone's comfortable with its accuracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I had not thought BLP applied, since the claim that he was in the film is not libelous, but I understand why Wikipedia's policy might be broader than worrying about just that. I will still post a link to the Underground Garage episode here when it becomes available so people can check it for themselves to hear that he does deny being in the film. 99.192.78.107 (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be good, thanks. I am unfamiliar with the program, so have no opinion about its reliability, but if we have a link we can take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and get the opinions of the folks who hang out there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:BLPREMOVE applies, but I do not intend to do any more because I agree with everything else you said. At this point, I'm curious to see the broadcast when 99 can link to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As am I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[somewhat later after multiple edit conflicts, and I didn't look when I hit save] So, assuming good faith of the IP, you're [Bbb23] saying that Ebert knows more about Tim Robbins than Tim Robbins does? "Self-published" and "OR"--absurd. This is how Wikipedia gets a reputation for treating IP editors poorly.

It's rather concerning that you'd promote 'verifiability over truth' to such an extent that when the very person who has the most to say factually about a subject (=himself), says it, you'd still leave the contradictory material in the article because it can be web-linked to a "reliable" source. My point is, in the face of contradictory information the sentence clearly should be removed; it's hardly important in any case. If the IP is playing games, I haven't seen a less interesting agenda in my life! (I just looked at the film and if that's Tim Robbins with a gun, he anticipated George Costanza quite well.)

Update: Here's the "interview": (Redacted). I can't tell the context as I don't have the patience to listen to this, but clearly he says it wasn't him ("they got me playing the assassin... it wasn't me"). Perhaps a sentence could be added saying that Robbins disclaims it, since it contradicts other sources. Otherwise people will keep adding it back. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your misinterpretation of my perspective, thanks. I've redacted the YouTube link as a copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Riggr. The YouTube clip has very murky sound, so it's a chore to try to listen to it, but the context of the discussion was that Steven was asking about a film called Keeper of the Pinstripes that his "research" told him that Robbins was working on right now. (IMDb lists it as a film he is in, but Wikipedia does not.) Robbins replied that it isn't true that he is in that film and commented generally about how he is sometimes credited as being in things he was not in. He names Network as a specific example of this phenomenon.

I should point out for those who want to hear the cleaner sound of the discussion on the UG webpage, you can only listen to the content there if you become a member (and membership is free, but requires you give them an email address which they will use to send you advertisements for Wicked Cool products).

And to Bbb23, linking to a YouTube clip that violates copyright is not itself a copyright violation, thus there was no need to "redact" the link. 99.192.78.107 (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I said I would post a link to the episode of the Underground Garage when it became available. Becaue it was a special episode, it was put on the site as an audio and video file and in a different place, so it took me a while to find it. But here it is: http://undergroundgarage.com/radio-show-2/ug500-video.html. The good news is it looks like you don't have to log in to watch the video, unlike with the audio archives for all the other episodes. To find the relevant bit with Tim Robbins scroll ahead to 1:32:30-1:33:10. He specifically blames IMDb for getting it wrong. 99.192.71.223 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, 99, for following through AND for posting the time. Says exactly what you said. As an aside, posting a link to a copyright violation is a violation of WP:LINKVIO.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sicne we all seem to be in agreement, I've restored the entry, with the link included. (Bbb23, there's no copyrigh violation here, since the video appears on the website of the radio program.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ken, I made minor changes to your edit. I agree there's no copyright problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rights section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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" ([3] - 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)

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)

Quote

@IjonTichyIjonTichy: Please explain how the quote "You are television incarnate, Diana[,] indifferent to suffering, insensitive to joy. All of life is reduced to the common rubble of banality." imparts any more information than the previous sentence which describes Christensen's "fanatical devotion to her job and emotional emptiness". The former is just full of superlatives and only reflects one character's view of her. What does "common rubble of banality" have to do with the main plot? It doesn't really help readers understand the story because it's a gratuitous quote. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of quotes. That's what Wikiquote is for. Plots are also supposed to focus on the plot, which is the events that occur in the story, not personal segues on each character or else we'd include each of Howard Beale's speeches as well. Opencooper (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Opencooper, the quote imparts additional info, enhancing and strengthening and deepening and broadening the previous sentence which describes Christensen's character. It helps readers better understand the overall story.

Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, while I'm still not a fan of it, I guess it does describe Diana pretty well. Very well then, while the tone would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, it is a quote from the film, and it does seem to shed some light on her portrayal which won Dunaway several awards. Opencooper (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)