Know what I mean?
Movie speech is so “elegant”, every word is perfectly spoken.
But reality is like: “um… so you know… I… uh…”… the spur of the moment, non-rehearsed, reality.
Maybe movies should add more “inelegance” to make them seem more “realistic”.
There’s some debate on this! Most movie dialogue is designed to convey the impression of conversation, but this is naturally unrealistic. People stutter and start over and get distracted in normal conversation much like you described, which can become very burdensome on the screen. Like when your boss won’t get to the point in the standup. Overly precise dialogue is equally burdensome and often fails to maintain attention (see: the Time 1776 AI videos). A lot of the discussion around how best to balance those natural pauses and disruptions around the otherwise “eloquent” speech in movies to best convey a characterization.
I’m sure others out there can point to legitimate sources, but I’m not super read up on it
This is one of the things I love about the movie, The Big Lebowski. The characters often start a sentence, but transition to a different thought before finishing the first sentence. They’ll pick up an overheard word or phrase they like and use it in their own conversations. It feels so much more real than typical move dialog.
That makes complete sense. If the point of a movie is to tell us a story, then it should be catered to be more exciting and engaging. Of course it also makes sense for someone to come up with a story that benefits on being told realistically, like a found footage kind of movie, in which OP’s suggestion makes sense.
Also there’s the style of delivery - old acting used to be very exaggerated and hammy, then there’s the kind of flawless but somewhat natural style that OP is talking about, through to today’s more realistic “mumbling” style that everyone complains about.
The old hammy style ties back to theatre. Performing live to an audience in seats that can be relatively far takes some degree of exaggeration to seem natural.