I hear you.

The latest inconsequentiality to attract my attention is the laminated conversation. Laminated is not the right word, because though the conversation is in multiple layers, it originates at one point, for instance with the words 'plate o' shrimp'. (A) says that the last time he had a plate o' shrimp was in Alexandria Virginia in the summer of 1984. (B) catches the word Alexandria but does not register the 'Virginia' and replies with a story about a bird he saw in Alexandria (Egypt). (A) understands (B) to have said something about a girl he knew in Virginia and comments on the prettiness of southern women. (B) says he wouldn't touch one with a barge pole for fear of being killed. Etc.

In the last two days I have witnessed three such conversations. In the first conversation one person was talking about the charms of rice wine while the other person was under the impression they were talking about barley tea.
The second conversation was rather more convoluted and circled about the relative charms of Pit Bulls versus Black Labs, with neither participant taking the least notice of what the other was saying.
The third conversation was about cutting down a certain tree. 'Take it down at the first fork," my friend said. The tree cutter had a completely different interpretation of 'first fork' and my friend came home to find her tree mutilated. My conclusion is that communication between two sentient beings is impossible and should under no circumstance be attempted.

This kind of thing never happens in movies, perhaps because it calls for dialog that is very difficult to write.