M (erciless) Night Shyamalan

[spidey]

Hey spiderman could work one day maybe but look amish exsist already i just wish night would write better stories hes ran around in circles lately... even all the screenplay magizines said he worn thing. when lady in the water on paper can only get 2 stars at best i think someone has lost touch with his own roots. if hes not careful he'll end up like lucas... a hack.

 

[bosindy]

See, now, the problem is that that's what the movie was about.

Actually, the whole film was about what the film was about..

not following

It's one thing to say the story/premise is not to your liking. It's another to say it was badly done...

I am not making a subject criticism, but rather an objective one. You can't have your characters act logically according to a set of rules and then, for the sake of conflict have them act completely illogically. In this case allowing a blind girl to go off on a journey to get help.

For me, it was quite a bit more believable than a film about someone being bitten by a radioactive spider and waking up with superpowers, rather than a spider bite

not relevent to my criticism of the specific choice the character makes, here you are talking about suspending disbelief, we would not have entire genres of fim making if audiences were not able to do this. Suspending disbelief in this case would be willing to believe a group would chose to spurn society and live as pilgrims in the middle of nowhere and somehow remain undetected by modernity. too this I say it is subjectively stupid.


But I guess it is all opinion on some level

 

[c.g._eads]

I am not making a subject criticism, but rather an objective one. You can't have your characters act logically according to a set of rules and then, for the sake of conflict have them act completely illogically. In this case allowing a blind girl to go off on a journey to get help.

I might be wrong on this but wasn't the reason he sent his daughter instead of anyone else because she was blind? And by being blind, she wouldn't be able to see the cars and modern day technology, therefore not disturbing the facade that was their town?

Oh my God. Did I just defend M. Night??

No.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

As such, I beg someone to tell me I'm wrong. I so so want to be wrong on this one.

being that i actually know night and the team at blinding edge, let me share my perspective on him. what most people have mistaken for ego or pride is actually just a strong dedication to his story ideas and confidence in he way he tells them. hubris, or arrogance, or a sense of superiority is a completely inaccurate description for his personality. i've known him to be courteous, amiable, and sociable. definitely much more touchy-feely than most people, i'd say. i can't count the number of hugs he gives in a day.

Yeah but Zak, there's "strong dedication" to your craft (filmmaking) and then there's putting yourself in your own movies in increasingly larger roles. I don't care how dedicated you are. That smacks of some major ego. If Night were someone else, would he have cast Night? Of course not. Which proves he doesn't have the movie's best interest in mind (even if he's blinded by that fact).


I was actually into the Village until it was discovered the monsters weren't real. i thought it set a very eerie mood. After we find out they're just costumes though, I jumped off that boat real quick.

 

[Blaine]

not relevent to my criticism of the specific choice the character makes, here you are talking about suspending disbelief, we would not have entire genres of fim making if audiences were not able to do this. Suspending disbelief in this case would be willing to believe a group would chose to spurn society and live as pilgrims in the middle of nowhere and somehow remain undetected by modernity. too this I say it is subjectively stupid.


But I guess it is all opinion on some level

Just out of curiosity, why is anymore stupid than to believe that a spider bite can bestow superhuman powers. Sorry, but this last argument of yours just doesn't hold water.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Yeah but Zak, there's "strong dedication" to your craft (filmmaking) and then there's putting yourself in your own movies in increasingly larger roles. I don't care how dedicated you are. That smacks of some major ego. If Night were someone else, would he have cast Night? Of course not. Which proves he doesn't have the movie's best interest in mind (even if he's blinded by that fact).

tarantino is no better an actor, maybe an even worse one. are you so critical of him to suggest his ego is out of control?

 

[bosindy]

Just out of curiosity, why is anymore stupid than to believe that a spider bite can bestow superhuman powers. Sorry, but this last argument of yours just doesn't hold water.

I said the last argument was subjective or more subjective. I was making a distinction between bizarre choices characters make and bizarre broader plot points. I feel you have to more careful with character choices.

I'm not much for the comic book stuff, but I think you buy into the more fantastic.

 

[Sad Max]

I only just now noticed, that the back of that guy's head is mooning me.

Nice.

LITW was a mess with a few nice little chunks here and there that didn't coalesce into a whole.

Dug 'Sixth Sense' and 'Unbreakable,' though.

Suspending disbelief in this case would be willing to believe a group would chose to spurn society and live as pilgrims in the middle of nowhere and somehow remain undetected by modernity. too this I say it is subjectively stupid.

That was all covered in the story, and in dialog. These people - some of them very wealthy - chose to spurn a society they believe to be intolerably violent and corrupt. They chose the pilgrim lifestyle because a regimented, ordered society is necessary to pull off the basics of supporting an eighteenth-century community, and because modernity is what they're fleeing. They chose to live in the middle of nowhere, on their own private land, surrounded by a fence and guarded 24/7, with satellite-imagery companies paid to leave the property off the hi-res pictures, and with their airspace restricted, leaving them undetected. This all works well enough, and is not stupid, at all.

'The Village' sort of sucks, for other reasons entirely.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

only just now noticed, that the back of that guy's head is mooning me.

Proof that asshats exist ?

 

[Kholi]

I guess no matter what you do, someone's going to dislike it.

I had no problem with Lady in the Water, as I have no problem with any of M. Night's movies/films. I won't say any of them are my favorite movies, but I sure as hell will not sit here and say that they're bad.

Standing up against movies like Ultraviolent, The Protector, and Fast and the Furious 3-- I'd have to say Lady in the Water is gold. It's a mystery to me why he's getting so much flak.

Can't please everyone, and it's a good thing he isn't trying to.

 

[Pale Rider]

Proof that asshats exist ?

HAHA! Nice :beer:

 

[c.g._eads]

tarantino is an even worse actor? are you so critical of him to suggest to suggest his ego is out of control?

Tarantino has an ego?? Nahhhhhhhhhh. Never! I think the truth of the matter is, that all directors have big egos. It kinda comes with the territory. Some, however, have bigger ones than others.

I actually think Quentin Tarantino is a good actor. I mean, he's not going to win any romanic lead roles, but if I need someone to play a manic hopped-up freak with a weird-shaped head, he's my man.

And we all know the quickest way to acting stardom is to direct your own movies and cast yourself!

C'mon though, M. Night in Signs?? A small white town in the middle of nowhere and that's the place this Indian guy has set up shop. My dad, who didn't know anything about M. Night, had one comment after the movie. "Why was that Indian guy in the movie? Was I the only one who thought he felt a bit of place." "No dad, that was the director." "Ohhhhhhh." All of a sudden, everything made sense.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Tarantino has an ego?? Nahhhhhhhhhh. Never! I think the truth of the matter is, that all directors have big egos. It kinda comes with the territory. Some, however, have bigger ones than others.

I actually think Quentin Tarantino is a good actor. I mean, he's not going to win any romanic lead roles, but if I need someone to play a manic hopped-up freak with a weird-shaped head, he's my man.

And we all know the quickest way to acting stardom is to direct your own movies and cast yourself!

C'mon though, M. Night in Signs?? A small white town in the middle of nowhere and that's the place this Indian guy has set up shop. My dad, who didn't know anything about M. Night, had one comment after the movie. "Why was that Indian guy in the movie? Was I the only one who thought he felt a bit of place." "No dad, that was the director." "Ohhhhhhh." All of a sudden, everything made sense.

well, maybe that's the difference. for me its clear as day: Tarantino's awkward inability to "keep up" with the pro's around him (as an actor) despite being the guy who wrote the dialogue in most cases, has been a distraction in every one of his films. a real actor would be better suited for those roles. so why does he keep putting himself in there? because he likes to act. just like night. so then i wonder, why are people more critical of one over the other?

now, I didn't see signs. and im sure he's awful in it. in fact the only shyamalan i've watched in its entirety is Unbreakable. i've seen pats of the others, but I didn't even watch Lady – which may surprise you – beacause i wasn't making a doc about the movie i was making a doc about the relationships between the people who made it. anyway...

again, i preface this by saying i haven't seen the film. but i'm from rural pennsylvania originally. I grew up in a predominately all white small town -- a "borough" actually. my best friend since seventh grade, all thru high school and ten years living in los angeles is Indian. his name's Kevin (Kaveen) and we now co-own Sabi Pictures together. my point is, there are Indian people in rural pennsylvania. quite a few.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I always enjoy Quentins spins in his films; whether it be RES DOGS or FROM DUSK TILL DAWN

I dont find him a terrbile actor; if he is distracting, it is usually cause I know it is him

The Bonnie / Coffee scene is great in PF. Even is RR's Desperado, QT is hilarious

=

M Night however is just bad

 

[SPZ]

I love M. Night films. His movies have that "magic"that you would get from early Spielberg, Lucas efforts. Also, I love the way his movies are framed and tought about. And his screenplays have so many layers of reading that, incredibly, never ends up alienating any viewer. Maybe Roberto Begnini can be described as a similar (but using diferent genres) filmmaker...

Now as an actor... Shyamalan definetly sucks. And it seriously hammered my pleasure on viewing Lady In The Water. If A good actor (heck average!) was cast for the Night role, I would've given it 2 thumbs up!

 

[Mars United]

I always enjoy Quentins spins in his films; whether it be RES DOGS or FROM DUSK TILL DAWN

I dont find him a terrbile actor; if he is distracting, it is usually cause I know it is him

The Bonnie / Coffee scene is great in PF. Even is RR's Desperado, QT is hilarious

=

M Night however is just bad

The problem with Tarantino's dialogue is that it takes a great actor to make it believable (sorry, that's MHO), and Mr. T can't quite cut it. He's not the worst, but I thought the Bonnie scene in PF was almost embarrassing to watch. (Love his work anyway!)

M Night should vow never to act again, which would be really simple if he never made another film again.

 

[GenJerDan]

I am not making a subject criticism, but rather an objective one. You can't have your characters act logically according to a set of rules and then, for the sake of conflict have them act completely illogically. In this case allowing a blind girl to go off on a journey to get help.

A blind girl wasn't allowed to go get help.

A trusted person, his daughter, was allowed to go get help.

Why not someone else? No one else in the newer generation cared enough to even to think of going, no one in the "in the know" generation was psychologically able to leave their self-inflicted paradise.

Why was anyone at all allowed to go, breaking the rules?

It's difficult to refuse a daughter something she wants that badly.

 

[bosindy]

A blind girl wasn't allowed to go get help.

A trusted person, his daughter, was allowed to go get help.

Why not someone else? No one else in the newer generation cared enough to even to think of going, no one in the "in the know" generation was psychologically able to leave their self-inflicted paradise.

Why was anyone at all allowed to go, breaking the rules?

It's difficult to refuse a daughter something she wants that badly.

Clearly you bought it. It just seems improbable that she would be able to make the journey to the other side and back blind and although aware, unfamiliar with this new advance culture. (even if the escorts lead her to the fence) There would be too much logistically that depends on incredible luck, IMO. But I respect your opinion and I guess it is subjective if so many have bought it.

A "distraction" is a good way to describe Tarantino's acting especially in Pulp Fiction although the scene is written so well that it is compelling even with Tarantino shakily taking Vincent and Jules to task. I can imagine Buscemi in that role and have Tarantino make his cameo as Buddy Holly at Jack Rabbit Slims, although it is splitting hairs because Pulp Fiction would be in my top 20.

 

[c.g._eads]

well, maybe that's the difference. for me its clear as day: Tarantino's awkward inability to "keep up" with the pro's around him (as an actor) despite being the guy who wrote the dialogue in most cases, has been a distraction in every one of his films. a real actor would be better suited for those roles. so why does he keep putting himself in there? because he likes to act. just like night. so then i wonder, why are people more critical of one over the other?

Because of the way Night carries himself. He has that smug "I'm smarter than you" vibe that he puts out and any interview he's given since the Sixth Sense clearly shows that success has gone to his head. Putting himself in his own movies only strengthens that position.

Tarantino is not smug. If anything he's a very affable fun-loving guy He just doesn't come off like he's God's gift to the world, even though he knows he's good. Like I said, ego comes with the direting territory, but some flaunt it louder than others. And M. Night is the guiltiest of all.

now, I didn't see signs. and im sure he's awful in it. in fact the only shyamalan i've watched in its entirety is Unbreakable. i've seen pats of the others, but I didn't even watch Lady – which may surprise you – beacause i wasn't making a doc about the movie i was making a doc about the relationships between the people who made it. anyway...

again, i preface this by saying i haven't seen the film. but i'm from rural pennsylvania originally. I grew up in a predominately all white small town -- a "borough" actually. my best friend since seventh grade, all thru high school and ten years living in los angeles is Indian. his name's Kevin (Kaveen) and we now co-own Sabi Pictures together. my point is, there are Indian people in rural pennsylvania. quite a few.

I find it strange that you didn't see a movie that you worked on. Aren't you at least a little bit curious to see how it turned out?

As for the Indian in Pennsylvania thing, of course I know it's a possibility. And whenever I look back at that scene, I wonder if I'm more thrown by the fact that the character is Indian or the fact that it's Night (or, more specifically, Night's acting). The only fact I did know was that it didn't feel right. Something felt weird about the scene. Like we were no longer in a movie. So if he's trying to break down Indian stereotypes then that's great and maybe it will give more Indian actors a chance. But it felt more like Night reading over the script and asking, "Okay, which role can I play?"

 

[HorseFilms]

I'm not really "out to get" M. Night or anything. I just don't dig his stuff. Not surprising, because I dislike the majority of the movies I see. I have very specific tastes and I'm fine with that.

 

[Zak Forsman]

I find it strange that you didn't see a movie that you worked on. Aren't you at least a little bit curious to see how it turned out?

nope. if i'm at all worried that the quality of the flick will affect my perception of the story i'm trying to tell (that being what happens behind the scenes) then i won't watch it. the doc originally had zero footage from the feature. WB's requested a little so i gave each character one singularly defining ID shot from the feature during the section on the ensemble cast. my doc was about the filmmakers' intentions, not to make a judgement on how successful they were. not watching the feature helps me remain objective.