M KNIGHT's The Happening

I'd love to hear some theories about why Hollywood keeps greenlighting this guy's scripts and why they're able to attach such big stars.
 
here's my "theory"... his films have grossed $773,249,129 in the US and $1.66 BILLION worldwide.
 
Last edited:
One thing I'll give Night is that his movies inspire a sense of wonder before you've seen them. He really picks out some interesting premises. The problem is, he doesn't execute those premises in a satsifactory manner. And it's easy to get people into theatres on that first weekend with a good premise and a big star. Big first weekend = more directing gigs.

Although some may argue that Night's success is linked more to his stars than his films. Let's not forget that his biggest hits were headlined by Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson. That sure doesn't hurt. When he didn't use a big star, we got Lady in The Water - not coincidentally his least successful film.

Personally, I feel like Hollywood is catching on to this guy. He will continue to have less and less control of his films. But that won't stop him from believing he's the next Hitchcock.
 
hee-hee, catching on, huh? if by that you mean giving him less money to play with... Paramount just put him in charge of writing and directing the Avatar trilogy... this being the BIGGEST project he's ever tackled with an initial budget of more than $250 million.

He starts shooting The Last Airbender early next year. this one, like Lady in the Water, was initially prompted by his kids.
 
Last edited:
i know that's been mentioned but I'd be very surprised if it ever came to light. Particularly with the catastrophic box office of Speed Racer - a film that Hollywood execs will find enough similarities in to not make the same mistake. I guess a lot will have to do with how The Happening does. If it pulls in 100 mil opening weekend, then Airbender will possibly be a go.

But seriously, if you had 250 million dollars, would you entrust it to Night? I wouldn't trust him with a budget over 20 mil personally. He's too much of a gamble.
 
no, you don't understand. they are already making it. contracts signed. pre-pro well underway. done deal. i can't say much more but it is further along than you think.
 
Last edited:
yeah but you know as well as I do that nothing's a done deal til the cameras start rolling. Halo, John Carter of Mars, Ender's Game. They were all done deals. If The Happening underperorms, I think we can both agree Airbender isn't Happening (no pun intended).
 
Zak Forsman said:
the ego thing is largely a media creation as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Since you seem to have a relationship with the guy, tell him he can do these three things to help people's perception of him. Stop acting in his own films. Stop putting his name above the title. And stop starring in TV specials promoting his work. Doing making of's is one thing, but making cheesy Rod Serling-type TV specials where he is the star gives people the wrong idea. If I were him, I'd go the Stanley Kubrick, Terence Malick route and do as little publicity as possible. The less we see of his face, the less people will think he's a shameless, self-promoting ego-maniac and he can start repairing his image.
 
Batutta said:
Since you seem to have a relationship with the guy, tell him he can do these three things to help people's perception of him. Stop acting in his own films. Stop putting his name above the title. And stop starring in TV specials promoting his work. Doing making of's is one thing, but making cheesy Rod Serling-type TV specials where he is the star gives people the wrong idea. If I were him, I'd go the Stanley Kubrick, Terence Malick route and do as little publicity as possible. The less we see of his face, the less people will think he's a shameless, self-promoting ego-maniac and he can start repairing his image.
Click to expand...

Good call. I'm sure that will be number 1 on Zak's todo list Monday morning.
 
I am a big Night fan. I have found something to love about all of his films. I do think that "Lady in the Water" was a train wreck, but still loved Giamatti's performance.


What I love about Night's movies is that he is basically making dramas and then dropping a high concept on them. Here's a breakdown of the high concept vs. the low concept:
"The Sixth Sense": A kids sees dead people. No, that's not the real story. It's about grief and accepting death and death of a relationship.
"Unbreakable": A guy finds out he's a superhero. Nope. It's about realizing how suppressing your abilities to please somebody else will ultimately destroy that relationship and upon re-finding your strength, you become whole again.
"Signs": A family reacts to an alien invasion. Not really. It's about a minister re-finding his faith.
"The Village": So called Monsters threaten a small community. The movie is really about people are so afraid of the world that they create their own world and use lies to control their children and the ramifications of these lies.
"Lady in the Water": Our world is threatened by other worldly creatures. The real story is about a man who is so lost in grief until he finds a reason to live.

Regarding a comment somebody else said about "The Village" I think they nailed it when they say it's about our current world and perhaps Night's most political film. (Think how we are being told to fear terrorist, meanwhile our way of life is being whittled away. ) I would love to see what happened after the last scene? How do these people deal with the lies they've created to control the village. Can they maintain the facade? Are the lies worth it? Are they bad people for lying?

I hope "The Happening" is worthwhile, but worry that the mainstream audiences can't look beyond the high concept surface and see the low concept, which is usually more interesting than the high concept, and see what really runs the dramatic engine of the film.

That's my two cents. I guess I better get out and see "The Happening."

Scott
 
J.R. Hudson said:
All this hate for M only means one thing is certain:


I'm probably going to like the film.
Click to expand...

Dude, you know me. I don't have hate for the M. I even gave Happening a half-caribou just because it was M.... but really, the movie deserved zero half-caribous.

On pure entertainment, it failed because the movie feels bland. The story throughline should have been compressed to the middle of Act II, thereby leaving enough time to explore a funner aspect of the premise (like Jaws did with the start of the Orca adventure during the middle of Act II.)

As a genre contribution, it failed because it took a suspense genre (like the Birds) and removed most things unexpected and, instead, ran through the genre like a procedural police drama.

On the eye-candy factor, it failed because the leading lady (although having cute eyes herself) does not have enough Maxim power unlike that girl from Transformers.

On the acting, it failed because that "eye-candy" leading lady's acting kept jarring-you back into realizing that you are simply watching an actor... instead of losing yourself in caring about the characters. Also, I normally like Marky Mark (way back from the Big Hit days) but really he took on a weird kind of motherly-school-librarian-voice that really made you want to laugh more than believe his emoting.

On the editing, it failed because the dialogue during the singles shots (great point from an earlier post) destroyed any believable pacing between the actors' action/reaction dialogue.

On the premise, it failed because you think a) "hey I love the promise of a doomsday scenario like this"; but, b) "I only wish that the story went through more refinements and pulled-out more cool ideas during some rewrites".

On the story, it failed because things don't really escalate... things are just kind of "there" by 20 minutes in, and it kind of just hovers. It's too bad, because any zombie genre can show you how exciting it is to keep confining your characters into a more and more restrictive environment.

On the backstory, if failed because, although it's interesting to see the characters do what they do at the final act, you really don't feel emotionally connected to the fate of the characters because you really don't believe their relationship conflict and you really don't identify too much with the girl's situation. (and it's too bad, because that would have been a very easy heartstring to pull)

On the directing, it fails because there aren't any notable camera placements to make it stand out as any creative achiement. ( I doubt you'll be analyzing many scenes on this one on CineObscure).

BUT, on the secondary characters, it SUCCEEDED. That old lady, and that Army private, were the only sources of vicarious interest. But, not enough to warrant paying theatre prices.

And this is from a guy who LIKES the M.
 
I so need to see this

I'm a junkie of

De Palma, Tarantino and Night

These 3 directors I find the most LOVE / HATE for in the critical circle. They definitely run off a different curve.

-

Interesting note from EBERT:

I suspect I'll be in the minority in praising this film. It will be described as empty, uneventful, meandering. But for some, it will weave a spell. It is a parable, yes, but it is also simply the story of these people and how their lives and existence have suddenly become problematic.
 
Batutta said:
I didn't actually expect you to do it, but somebody should. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
your advice is not a solution of any kind. he isn't blind or deaf. he knows the criticism. bu the truth of this industry is that all he needs is another hit and no one will care if the studio's marketing department puts his name above the title on posters and billboards. they love to kick you when you're down.
 
Zak Forsman said:
your advice is not a solution of any kind. he isn't blind or deaf. he knows the criticism. bu the truth of this industry is that all he needs is another hit and no one will care if the studio's marketing department puts his name above the title on posters and billboards. they love to kick you when you're down.
Click to expand...

Well, you suggested that his reputation is a media creation, and I was just pointing out that he willfully feeds that creation himself. The problem with doing that is when you are down, which is inevitable with any filmmaking career, people are that much more eager to kick you.
 
Oh give me a break. It's not even an argument that Night is an egomaniac. He wrote himself a part in Lady In The Water as an author who writes a book that later saves the entire world. lol
 
c.g._eads said:
Oh give me a break. It's not even an argument that Night is an egomaniac. He wrote himself a part in Lady In The Water as an author who writes a book that later saves the entire world. lol
Click to expand...

:) you'd be right if that were the case. that's not an accurate description of the character he played. it's embarrassing how much i know about LITW. i haven't even seen the film but I did make an all-encompassing doc about the production. his character of Vick was encouraged to continue writing because he would produce a work that would later, after he was long dead, inspire someone else to do great things. the sentiment being that we should think beyond ourselves. his character was based on Harriet Beecher Stowe's writing of Uncle Tom's Cabin and its influence on Abraham Lincoln and the emergence of the civil war. suggesting that your own perceived failures could one day inspire someone else to greatness is far from an egomaniac casting himself as savior of the world. but again, i understand people who want to punch holes in shyamalan's public persona, need to define and shape it into a simplistic image that fits their need for an easy target.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top