![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Plot synopsis is inaccurate.
152.3.183.223 ( talk) 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
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?
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)
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:
Wait, he was fired but still allowed to go live on the air? This defies belief. Then:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I suggest revising the sentence:
In the 2006 DVD release [1], 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:
Magrathea78 ( talk) 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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." [1]
The setup for this thesis is the first "Howard Beale Show" with the speech beginning "Edward George Ruddy died today."
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.
Jensen then launches into the famous "Primal Forces of Nature" speech containing the key line
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).
Magrathea78 ( talk) 07:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
“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)
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 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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Plot synopsis is inaccurate.
152.3.183.223 ( talk) 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
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.
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?
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)
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:
Wait, he was fired but still allowed to go live on the air? This defies belief. Then:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I suggest revising the sentence:
In the 2006 DVD release [1], 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:
Magrathea78 ( talk) 05:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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." [1]
The setup for this thesis is the first "Howard Beale Show" with the speech beginning "Edward George Ruddy died today."
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.
Jensen then launches into the famous "Primal Forces of Nature" speech containing the key line
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).
Magrathea78 ( talk) 07:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
“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)
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 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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
@ 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)