Talk:Network (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)