the comittee to confiscate M Night's typewriter is now in session

[stickmangrit]

hallo, long time browser, first time forumite.

M. Night Shyamalan. what can one say? the guy's a cocky, oversure, self-important ass. but on the other hand, he makes a damn pretty piece of celluloid. the man can handle suspense and set up with astounding skill, only to fuck it all up with clunky dialogue. here, i think, is what it boils down to: Shyama is simultaneously one of the greatest directors and shittiest writers of our time. just look at the birthday parties from 6th Sense or Signs, or the final battle in Unbreakable. he's an amazing hand at a camera, there's no denying that. but then look at the endings to Signs, The Village, and all of Lady in the Water. the man simply cannot piece together a plot anymore. he needs to do a movie with someone else's script, or an adaptation of someone else's work. this, i think, could potentially erscue his career from the toilet bowl he's currently circling.

[Potzer! 37]

Well, I...aw fuck it with the intelligent argument. I think you're wrong about his faults at the typewriter. So there what're you gonna do now?

[echo_bravo]

I agree with ya stickmangrit. He is a very talented director and I would love to see him team up with a good writer for once.

[ParileseMonster]

My only request is that the man stay behind the camera. He is not an actor and he does not have to stamp his goofy face in all of his movies. Ive tolerated his bit parts but these substantial roles he is trying to pursue himself, have got to go to someone more qualified.

[adamjohnson]

Originally posted by ParileseMonster
My only request is that the man stay behind the camera. He is not an actor and he does not have to stamp his goofy face in all of his movies. Ive tolerated his bit parts but these substantial roles he is trying to pursue himself, have got to go to someone more qualified.

I dont find his acting that bad.

I do find his roles stupid though.

LITW was kinda 'out there'.

I just wish Night would do a horror film. A straight out, Hills Have Eyes, guy with a chainsaw KILLER movie.

Who here can argue it wold not be scary as all hell?

[jolanar]

Originally posted by adamjohnson
I dont find his acting that bad.

I do find his roles stupid though.

LITW was kinda 'out there'.

I just wish Night would do a horror film. A straight out, Hills Have Eyes, guy with a chainsaw KILLER movie.

Who here can argue it wold not be scary as all hell?

That would be awesome. Possibly career redeeming.

[Kevin Lockard]

Why do people consider him such a "great director of our times?" I don't really see where the guy is so great. Signs and Sixth sense were great the first time around, but only pretty good every other time, and everything else he has done seems medicore to me. That's what I think of when I think of him. Where is his ego warranted?

[sAtAn666]

I loved his early films, especially Unbreakable. The Village was godawful, and The Lady in the Water is getting some horrible reviews...

I'm not sure I want to be a fan anymore.:p

[Servo]

Whatever. I've heard people bitch about how much M. Night Shyamalan sucks for years, and not once - not ONCE - have I heard an argument that even supports their claims that he's bad at anything. This post is no different. You pointed out two movies that, supposedly, don't have a "good pieced together plot," and don't even explain what's wrong with them. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the plots. Usually when people pick apart his films, it's tiny finnicky bullshit like "Oh he got stabbed in this area so he should've died." What the fuck ever.

That's all I'm gonna say for now for those M. Night nay-sayers. What-the-fuck-ever. The man's only made like four or five movies and he's already on top of the world and can do whatever the fuck he wants. Not many new directors are like that these days - that's got to count for something.

People complain about his ego. I point out Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock and Roman Polanski. Kubrick was a dick, Hitchcock was a sexist, and Polanski was a pe-teen hunting male-whore. Yet we all stand in line to kiss their asses and throw them in the hall of "Greatest Directors of All Time." I sure as hell do, despite their flaws.

Take away his typewriter? Say goodbye to some of the only original films to come out recently.

[Shockwave]

Night tries too hard to do stuff on his own and its back-fired on him in his last few movies.

He wants to write, act, direct, ect, ect, in all his movies and hes gotta learn to focus on one.

He also needs to drop the cgi shit. Every time it appears in his movies it seems totaly out of place.:(

[Scorpio24]

Originally posted by Servo
Whatever. I've heard people bitch about how much M. Night Shyamalan sucks for years, and not once - not ONCE - have I heard an argument that even supports their claims that he's bad at anything. This post is no different. You pointed out two movies that, supposedly, don't have a "good pieced together plot," and don't even explain what's wrong with them. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the plots. Usually when people pick apart his films, it's tiny finnicky bullshit like "Oh he got stabbed in this area so he should've died." What the fuck ever.

That's all I'm gonna say for now for those M. Night nay-sayers. What-the-fuck-ever. The man's only made like four or five movies and he's already on top of the world and can do whatever the fuck he wants. Not many new directors are like that these days - that's got to count for something.

People complain about his ego. I point out Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock and Roman Polanski. Kubrick was a dick, Hitchcock was a sexist, and Polanski was a pe-teen hunting male-whore. Yet we all stand in line to kiss their asses and throw them in the hall of "Greatest Directors of All Time." I sure as hell do, despite their flaws.

Take away his typewriter? Say goodbye to some of the only original films to come out recently.

Saves me typing.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The guy is a good director who just happened to have made a streak of shitty films.

[BigSugar]

He was good filmaker up through "The Village." The problem with the writing is this; all of the "twists" prior deepened the films. The revalation at the end of "Unbreakable makes the movie much more intense on a second viewing, as you can see the depths of manipulation that Sam Jackson's character will go to. "The Village" ended with a twist that makes the whole thing a political satire. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's the movie you've sold to me before I sit in my seat watch it. A period horror film simply can't spin back to deep philosophy on a whim. As an audience member, it just didn't work for me, for a lot of people I think. This is to say nothing of the lousy plotting he's been doling out since "Signs." Aliens choose a planet 2/3 covered in water to invade, and water is like acid to them? Hope it wasn't raining anywhere they landed! Same in "The Village." Guy's not smart enough to get the "don't stab other people" lesson down, but can put on the suit to attempt another murder? I will suspen my belief a helluva long way, but you can't ask me too go that far. And, yes, I understand that at the end of the film, all of those things were supposed to work in the overall metaphor, but I don't want to be bludgeoned with politics at a movie that's supposed to scare the hell out of me. This is to say nothing about the woodedn dialogue that he writes. Watch something like "Spartan" or "Glenngary/Glennross" and tell me that Night has a way with character dialogue.

[stickmangrit]

Originally posted by BigSugar
He was good filmaker up through "The Village." The problem with the writing is this; all of the "twists" prior deepened the films. The revalation at the end of "Unbreakable makes the movie much more intense on a second viewing, as you can see the depths of manipulation that Sam Jackson's character will go to. "The Village" ended with a twist that makes the whole thing a political satire. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's the movie you've sold to me before I sit in my seat watch it. A period horror film simply can't spin back to deep philosophy on a whim. As an audience member, it just didn't work for me, for a lot of people I think. This is to say nothing of the lousy plotting he's been doling out since "Signs." Aliens choose a planet 2/3 covered in water to invade, and water is like acid to them? Hope it wasn't raining anywhere they landed! Same in "The Village." Guy's not smart enough to get the "don't stab other people" lesson down, but can put on the suit to attempt another murder? I will suspen my belief a helluva long way, but you can't ask me too go that far. And, yes, I understand that at the end of the film, all of those things were supposed to work in the overall metaphor, but I don't want to be bludgeoned with politics at a movie that's supposed to scare the hell out of me. This is to say nothing about the woodedn dialogue that he writes. Watch something like "Spartan" or "Glenngary/Glennross" and tell me that Night has a way with character dialogue.

to add, the increasingly long and dialogue heavy roles he casts himself in seem to grow along with his overconfidence. he's gone from nameless jewlery store customer to the most important writer ever over the course of five films. the vanity is getting to be more than a bit much.

[stickmangrit]

Originally posted by Servo
Whatever. I've heard people bitch about how much M. Night Shyamalan sucks for years, and not once - not ONCE - have I heard an argument that even supports their claims that he's bad at anything. This post is no different. You pointed out two movies that, supposedly, don't have a "good pieced together plot," and don't even explain what's wrong with them. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the plots. Usually when people pick apart his films, it's tiny finnicky bullshit like "Oh he got stabbed in this area so he should've died." What the fuck ever.

That's all I'm gonna say for now for those M. Night nay-sayers. What-the-fuck-ever. The man's only made like four or five movies and he's already on top of the world and can do whatever the fuck he wants. Not many new directors are like that these days - that's got to count for something.

People complain about his ego. I point out Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock and Roman Polanski. Kubrick was a dick, Hitchcock was a sexist, and Polanski was a pe-teen hunting male-whore. Yet we all stand in line to kiss their asses and throw them in the hall of "Greatest Directors of All Time." I sure as hell do, despite their flaws.

Take away his typewriter? Say goodbye to some of the only original films to come out recently.

first off, Kubrick and Hitchcock were both well aware of the fact that they were incapable of acting, and stayed behind the damn camera(save for Hitchcock's famous cameos, none of which were integral to the plot of his films). add to that the fact that most all of Hitchcock and Kubrick's screenplays were adaptations, and we see them as perfect counter-examples to mr shyamalan. these two greats, despite their personal foibles, stayed the hell behind the camera and made fantastic motion pictures. Shaymalan tries to write, direct and star and creates mediocrity at best, with great visuals.

[BigSugar]

"Whatever. I've heard people bitch about how much M. Night Shyamalan sucks for years, and not once - not ONCE - have I heard an argument that even supports their claims that he's bad at anything. "



Don't get me wrong, I think he's a fine visualist. So's Tony Scott. And Ridley. The list goes on and on. Here's the thing; as a writer, he is far from being in the top of the game and five studio films in, he's getting worse, not better. I don't thnk anyone can make the argument that "The Village" had richly drawn characters as did "Unbreakable." Nor can I ignore the huge logic leaps that "The Village asked me to make when I went to see it. Adrien Brody's character was slight an served only as a plot device. A blind girl who's not quite blind? And that's before I get to the central conciet of the whole film! I don't think he's a bad director. I think he's becoming a terrible writer. And, I'm sorry, but when I read the excerpts from the book about him and Disney, I didn't think of Wells and RKO. It sounds more like Paris Hilton and Linsey Lohan or some fucking thing. I don't know any writer in the woirld who thinks that a screenplay should be the end-all or be-all of the film making process as Night does. I think honestly that this was all publicity to get more asses in seats and it backfired. A bad movie is a bad movie. "Showgirls" was controversial, and look what happened.

[Jon Lyrik]

I don't think he's a great director at all, especially with the last two films, which were very poorly directed. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were well-directed, even if he lifts a lot from Hitchcock (the use of sound/visuals) and a few others. He's either trying to shed his audience or his ego has gotten so huge that he can't create dramatic tension anymore without making it unintentionally hilarious (the dialogue doesn't help), probably because he doesn't know how to handle the more ambitious/pretentious ideas he has.

It's kind of like when everyone laudes on Quentin Tarantino for his writing abilities, but he's just a megalomaniacal movie brat who has two really good movies under his belt from ten years ago, but even one of them is basically a big homage to a late-80s Chow Yun Fat film. Okay, Kill Bill was fun, and the second part had some emotional resonance, but he has absolutely nothing to say as an artist other than "who-wee, I am the world's biggest movie nerd with a degree of knowledge in music, so I will relentlessly reference all my favorite movies, and every 16-year-old film geek/hipster on the planet will cum in their pants and say I'm clever and brilliant". I kind of have the same feeling for Robert Rodriguez, but he's less obvious and obnoxious about it and has more creativity.

[BigSugar]

"The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were well-directed, even if he lifts a lot from Hitchcock (the use of sound/visuals) and a few others."


See, you said it yourself, man. Missteps don't equal a bad director, hell even Spielberg has fucked up on occasion. But since you invoke Quentin, allow me to retort. What maked Tarantino's films great is, largely, the dialogue. Well written, well drawn characters that actors can sink their teeth into. Night likes to leave too many holes and depends on silent looks for his characterazations. He makes the mistake of confusing subtlety with blankness. A canvas, after all, is just a canvas until someone paints on it. The act is, however, that some of his subtle momnents do work. The breakfast scene following Bruce Willis' first act of heroism in "Unbreakable" is great.The table scene early in "The Village" is not. The one thing that sticks out in my mind as good direction in the later is the moment when Joaquin Pheonix gets stabbed. Great moment, completely unexpected. Then the film just died because Night couldn't figure out how to write the rest of it and make it work. I think the idea od taking away his writing and making him work on something different isn't that bad an idea.

By the by, I think you're wrong about Tarantino as well. Yes he's derrivative, but that's the point. T. S. Elliot's famous quote, "good writers borrow, great writers steal." It means that writers take things from ther writers and make them unique to each piece. Tarantino does that better than anyone working.

[Jon Lyrik]

Quentin used to be great at dialogue, that's what made his first two films so good, but are you going to argue that Kill Bill had any amazing writing? Aside from the Superman monologue, of course. There's nothing wrong with borrowing or homaging other writers, but with Tarantino, it's the whole package. Kill Bill's characters are kinda cool, I guess, and certainly the cast is great, but it's all gimmick. The problem with Tarantino isn't that he homages, but he's an egotistical brat raised on film who's also a filmmaker with nothing left to say anymore. He's all out of snappy dialogue (see the painfully boring and overlong Jackie Brown), so all he has left are gimmicks and homages. Sure, he can still make the films relatively entertaining, but it's all hollow and it will probably run dry quickly.

[BigSugar]

You keep backtracking and saying "yeah, maybe it'll be entertaining, but it's hollow." So what you're looking for is depth in both writing and direction, as should we all. But here's the thing; at some point, you have to be willing to admit that you also want to ENJOY the movies. All the good writing and direction in the world won't make a film enjoyable. Witness "Saving Private Ryan," and "Shchindler's List." Great films but not the kind of thing one sits down to watch for a light day, you know? You say that "Greed" is your favorite film. I hope you're talking about Strohiem's film and noth some striaght-to-video van Damme flick. But even at that, you love a four hour long silent film that I wouldn't sit through on a dare. Not because it's not a great film, it no doubt is. But, in my opinion, a movie experience is not four hours of silent film. But that's me. I love David Mamet, most people hate him, certainly his movies. I don't kow why that is, but it is. You like, I'm assuming, Strohiem, lots of people don't (with all due respect, by the way, how can you be slamming Tarantino's dialogue whan you obviously prefer films with no dialogue?). The point I'm trying to make is this; Night is a bad writer, no doubt, but you seem to be looking for something so far above what is coming out of Hollywood, that this argument seems incredibly beneath you. That's where you loose the argument with geeks like Tarantino. The so-bad-it's-good-crowd. It's a paradox, I know, but you can't argue with the muck unless you're actually in the muck.

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by Servo
Whatever. I've heard people bitch about how much M. Night Shyamalan sucks for years, and not once - not ONCE - have I heard an argument that even supports their claims that he's bad at anything. This post is no different. You pointed out two movies that, supposedly, don't have a "good pieced together plot," and don't even explain what's wrong with them. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the plots. Usually when people pick apart his films, it's tiny finnicky bullshit like "Oh he got stabbed in this area so he should've died." What the fuck ever.

That's all I'm gonna say for now for those M. Night nay-sayers. What-the-fuck-ever. The man's only made like four or five movies and he's already on top of the world and can do whatever the fuck he wants. Not many new directors are like that these days - that's got to count for something.

People complain about his ego. I point out Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock and Roman Polanski. Kubrick was a dick, Hitchcock was a sexist, and Polanski was a pe-teen hunting male-whore. Yet we all stand in line to kiss their asses and throw them in the hall of "Greatest Directors of All Time." I sure as hell do, despite their flaws.

Take away his typewriter? Say goodbye to some of the only original films to come out recently.

Apparently you missed my hundred page-long posts about my problems with the Village and Lady in the Water. And well, good riddance then to those so-called original films. With the last two, I certainly won't be missing his writing anytime soon.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by BigSugar
You keep backtracking and saying "yeah, maybe it'll be entertaining, but it's hollow." So what you're looking for is depth in both writing and direction, as should we all. But here's the thing; at some point, you have to be willing to admit that you also want to ENJOY the movies. All the good writing and direction in the world won't make a film enjoyable. Witness "Saving Private Ryan," and "Shchindler's List." Great films but not the kind of thing one sits down to watch for a light day, you know? You say that "Greed" is your favorite film. I hope you're talking about Strohiem's film and noth some striaght-to-video van Damme flick. But even at that, you love a four hour long silent film that I wouldn't sit through on a dare. Not because it's not a great film, it no doubt is. But, in my opinion, a movie experience is not four hours of silent film. But that's me. I love David Mamet, most people hate him, certainly his movies. I don't kow why that is, but it is. You like, I'm assuming, Strohiem, lots of people don't (with all due respect, by the way, how can you be slamming Tarantino's dialogue whan you obviously prefer films with no dialogue?). The point I'm trying to make is this; Night is a bad writer, no doubt, but you seem to be looking for something so far above what is coming out of Hollywood, that this argument seems incredibly beneath you. That's where you loose the argument with geeks like Tarantino. The so-bad-it's-good-crowd. It's a paradox, I know, but you can't argue with the muck unless you're actually in the muck.

Wait, what? I'm not saying I don't enjoy films with dialogue, or that I'm some incredibly pretentious snob who can't enjoy something that is accessible to most audiences, even most fellow film geeks. I just think Quentin's shot his load, which is why he's making gorefest cult-esque flicks now. There's nothing wrong with that (hell, the Evil Dead flicks practically shot me into movie geekdom), but he comes across as incredibly egomaniacal, as if he is making genius work here, and I think that a lot (NOT all, but a good deal) of Q-T fanatics look at the Kill Bill as brilliant just because their idol is attached to it, and I can't understand why, especially since he is doing nothing special here.

Plus I'm getting the impression from you that you think that I can't possibly enjoy a four-hour silent film and that I'm just saying that it's my favorite film to fellate my own ego and impress random people on the internet. Maybe I do genuinely love to watch Greed, and maybe I can also find stimulation from all kinds of movies. Hell, I can't wait to catch The Descent and Snakes On A Plane in the near-future.

[BigSugar]

"Plus I'm getting the impression from you that you think that I can't possibly enjoy a four-hour silent film and that I'm just saying that it's my favorite film to fellate my own ego and impress random people on the internet."


Okay, that's the wrong impression. What I am saying is this; you're dancing back and forth over the line of literature vs. pulp, wherein people say "this is garbage because it just is, not being of the higher order of art within the craft." You're tastes are not at issue, your argument is. The problem is, we actualy agree on the core problem which is that M. Night is an awful writer. Where we don't agree is that he is a bad director. I think he has plenty of skill behind a camers, in a way that the most frustrating part of his work. He's managed to actually polish a turd. How Tarantino comes into this is you seem to feel that the both share pesonality traits that make them egotistical pricks. I honestly think that that's irrelevant in both cases. I could be wrong as hell, but fom what I know of the filmaking process, how necessarily collaborative it is, no ammount of "don't fuck with my script!" is going to matter. Also, I've never heard of any incident in which Tarantino decreed that there would be no interference from the studio in his writing prior to filming, as Night seems to have mandated. All the more irony to be found there, for it's Nights writing that's the problem.

The thing is, I don't like coming down on Disney's side. his isn't a corporation that's earned a rep. for giving a creative environment to its talent, ever. But I also think that people that have walked Night through this process have probably kept him from making some bad calls (where the fuck were they when he brought in the script for "The Village"). If I had to take a guess at what's going on with him, I think Disney gor shok hard when their cash cow missed some volume on the last film. They thought maybe he was going to far afield for audiences (speaking only for myself, hell yes he is) and tried to reign him in. Now that he's losing muscle, he's raising Holy Hell in attempt to show off his dick, which isn't quite the gold it used to be. Warners is going to have to make him go back of the woodshed if they mean to keep his ass in profitable movies. But that had beter damn-well happen while the movies is on the page, not in front of a lens.

[< a c e >]

Heard what all had to say, and i think this--->


Firstly, I'll make one thing very clear..."Lady in the water" was a bad film. Not because the fairytale was far-fetched and all that jazz...but because, he seemed to have rushed with the script. He should've made a couple more drafts and then moved ahead. Nobody liked the constant imposition of the logics in the fairy world.

_________________________________________


Manoj Night Shyamalan and his set of 'original' films namely 6thsense, unbreakable, signs, the village and even Lady in the water will be remembered. He will be remembered as an auteur who always tried to mix reality with elements and myths that we want to but can't believe in (ghosts, superheroes, mythology, history, fairytales)...every attempt of his is a special one wherein he tries to redefine the term 'neo-realism'.

There will be books written about the man...positive ones. Your children will watch his movies and wonder why you hated him. They'll love his films for its sheer silent energy and cleanliness(i.e. family entertainment).

_________________________________________

[BigSugar]

Dear sweet Jesus, I hope any kids I might have will look back and say, "Daddy, who the fuck is this M. Night Shayamalammading-dong?" At which point I will explain very carefully that he was a fine visualist who couldn't write his way out of a wet paper sack. I know that's harsh, but you can't really think this guy has the chops of a Michael Mann or Spielberg. Those are guys who will have left a deep footprint. Look no further than someone like Peter Yates for proof of Night's short run at the fishmarket. And for the record, if my kids do wing up being so addled as to adore this guy, I at least hope they have the good sense to put "Unbreakable" at the top of the heap where it belongs.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by BigSugar
Okay, that's the wrong impression.

Sorry about that, I have an inherently defensive attitude that seeps through on the internet.

What I am saying is this; you're dancing back and forth over the line of literature vs. pulp, wherein people say "this is garbage because it just is, not being of the higher order of art within the craft." You're tastes are not at issue, your argument is. The problem is, we actualy agree on the core problem which is that M. Night is an awful writer. Where we don't agree is that he is a bad director. I think he has plenty of skill behind a camers, in a way that the most frustrating part of his work. He's managed to actually polish a turd. How Tarantino comes into this is you seem to feel that the both share pesonality traits that make them egotistical pricks. I honestly think that that's irrelevant in both cases. I could be wrong as hell, but fom what I know of the filmaking process, how necessarily collaborative it is, no ammount of "don't fuck with my script!" is going to matter. Also, I've never heard of any incident in which Tarantino decreed that there would be no interference from the studio in his writing prior to filming, as Night seems to have mandated. All the more irony to be found there, for it's Nights writing that's the problem.

See, I do think Night is a good director, just not too original. I do think their egos are very clear in their work, though. Like I said about Night, either he is trying to shed his audience or his ego has ballooned to such massive proportions (the critic in Lady In The Water being a sign) that it has hurt his ability to write. I've already gotten into why I think Tarantino has an ego (plus from gossip I've heard).

[Kevin Lockard]

I very much doubt there will be books that will be written about him. What makes him so God-like all of a sudden? I wasn't aware he was regarded so highly by anybody at all BEFORE the hate until this topic came around and I started looking into it. People act like the guy is out there setting the world on fire or something, only he's not "getting the credit he deserves." That, or he is getting unjustified hate.

[BigSugar]

Okay, so that leads me to this question; what constitutes originality in terms of directing? I'm not trying to poke a stick at the soft underbelly, but what is it that makes any director fresh or original? Is it visial calisthenics liek David Fincher's? Or is it incorporating technology like Lucas or Michael Mann? Look, I'm a true believer when it comes to that almost lost faith of Material Is Everything. So much so, that I think some scripts make directors better. Bad scripts can't be made good simply by adding stunning visuals. I love Ridley Scott, and "Blade Runner" is a fantastic movie visually, but the script is a mess. I think Ridley is one hell of an original director, but I have no good argument for why. Is it like porn: I know it when I see it? Is it even possible to delineate why someone has the virtue of originality while others don't? With writing it's a whole different kettle of fish. There are some rules to it. Syd Field has a whole damn library dedicated to the subject of screenwriting rules, and as I see it, Night tends to ignore a lot of them. You keep coming back to his personality, and that may well be the crux of his problem as a writer. But do you think it has the repercussions on his directing?

[Jon Lyrik]

No, I don't think it has ruined his directorial skills, though some of the scenes in his last two films made me laugh out loud (unintentionally, I'm sure). That could just be because the stories and scripts are so absurdly bad, and no amount of ornate or just plain competent direction can correct that.

As for originality, he does seem to love his Hitchcock, especially in Signs. Not necessarily a bad thing, everyone has their idols. I emulate my musical heroes while playing or writing myself.

[BigSugar]

So, I guess we agree to agree for different reasons. The guy should be forced to shoot scripts he didn't write for a while. I can live with that.

[adamjohnson]

I truly believe the only difference between Night's first three films and his last two is very simple: comfort zone.

Night has been out of his comfort zone with The Village and LITW. It's very well known that Night grew up in Philly and uses it in all his films, including Signs, Village, and LITW.

The difference is in The Village - it's basically a period piece. That is out of most people's comfort zone, so it's very easy to make that assumption methinks. I mean, people complained about the dialogue not bing realistic but, hey, it's the freaking 1800's! Do you KNOW what they sound like?

As I said, Night takes people and dialogue from his home town, and there's no real way to emulate this in a period piece.

Now, with LITW it was a bit different. We know that the story Night told his kid, which the movie was based upon, was the monologue at the beginning at that was that. Then he sort of had to 'fill in the gaps' and make a whole movie.

There are two big reasons why this film wasn't as good. Though I consider it better than the VIllage,.

1) Night was doing this one for his kids. When you do something like a big-budget movie for the sake of a loved one you definitely lose alot of perspective. He told his kids a story - and then couln't force himself to change it for the big screen. He did it for them.

2) LITW was a fantasy film. It was Lord of the RIngs. It was Narnia.

Really.

And this is not Night's forte. Night is a very REALISTIC director. When i look at his characters and his dialogue I always think, "This is how a superhero really WOULD look and sound in the modern world." or "This is how we really WOULD handle it if aliens invaded."

The problem is Night went the otehr direction with LITW - making it UNrealistic, seemingly on purpose, because it IS a fantasy film. The dialogue is strange (especially the critic's) because he wasn't using that same realism approach.

Now, another big reason the movie didnt work well as it should was because he was still trying to make the environment real. The Hotel, the actions - so there was a big culture clash, too much mixing of genres. You cant have a realistic film with unrealistic dialogue and a fantasy plot. Savvy?

Not to mention that at certain points it was extremely SCARY and at otehrs was entirely elementary,

Again, I think Night just lost his focus and forgot his audience because he was doing it for his kids. He screwed up.

Now, all he needs to do is get back to doing straight pshychological horror films set in modern day Philly and he'll be fine. (Of course, I wish Night would a ball-to-the-wall horror film Like Hills Have Eyes 2 because I thionk we can ALL agree it would be FUCKING RIDICULIOUS SCARY!!!

[Shockwave]

I agree with the notion that he needs to direct soem films that other people have written for awhile. Hes trying to do too much and its just not coming together like it did at first.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by stickmangrit
hallo, long time browser, first time forumite.

M. Night Shyamalan. what can one say? the guy's a cocky, oversure, self-important ass. but on the other hand, he makes a damn pretty piece of celluloid. the man can handle suspense and set up with astounding skill, only to fuck it all up with clunky dialogue. here, i think, is what it boils down to: Shyama is simultaneously one of the greatest directors and shittiest writers of our time. just look at the birthday parties from 6th Sense or Signs, or the final battle in Unbreakable. he's an amazing hand at a camera, there's no denying that. but then look at the endings to Signs, The Village, and all of Lady in the Water. the man simply cannot piece together a plot anymore. he needs to do a movie with someone else's script, or an adaptation of someone else's work. this, i think, could potentially erscue his career from the toilet bowl he's currently circling.
I whole-heartedly agree. That's spot-on my opinion on the Night. Wherever the petition is... I'll sign it.

I can't even describe how dispappointed I was to hear that M. Night left the Life of Pi adaptation project. I have no doubt in my mind that when sitting down to write a script based on previously published source material, he'd have no problem peicing together a plot or dialogue since it's all there for him. And his visual style would have been able to grow immensely had he directed Life of Pi; it would have been a fascinating experiment in minimalism for him. I'd loved to have seen it. But unfortunately, he's probably sitting down right now and writing a piece more pretentious, preachy and clunky as anything he's done. A pity. The guy really is one of the most talented directors working today. But he really should try to let someone else write his screenplays, just once. Go for a test drive, see how it works out for him, directing someone else's screenplay. I think it will only do good, but that's just me.

[< a c e >]

Damn! I'm hearing it on the imdb and several other forums--->Some of us seem to have jumped the gun a bit by deciding that this man's career is done. I'd like to correct that thought. Night's time's not anywhere near the end. What he does next will still be looked upon with curiosity, the release will still be important (maybe comparitively less significant)...and the reviews will still be read by most.

[NCarter]

I used to think he was an amazing director.
Then he put out clunker after clunker.

I think The 6th Sense and Unbreakable were flukes

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Servo
Whatever. I've heard people bitch about how much M. Night Shyamalan sucks for years, and not once - not ONCE - have I heard an argument that even supports their claims that he's bad at anything. This post is no different. You pointed out two movies that, supposedly, don't have a "good pieced together plot," and don't even explain what's wrong with them. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the plots. Usually when people pick apart his films, it's tiny finnicky bullshit like "Oh he got stabbed in this area so he should've died." What the fuck ever.

One of his movies reveals a secret, and after revealing this secret, has a scene that is meant to be scary, as is shot as if it should be scary, but which could only be scary if this secret hadn't been revealed already. This is such monumentally stupid writing it's almost unbelievable that it reached a major motion picture. For real. There's no way to justify that turn of events as anything other than a complete misstep in terms of storytelling.

[Shockwave]

This has happend with amny directors/writers in my opinion. The first work they do is often the best because they have had a life-time to get it right, but after they become a hit, they try to keep the ball rolling with hit and hit, but without enough time taken to really get things right.

I say he needs to adapt other peoples work for abit, OR take more time in-between movies to really get a grip on the story hes trying to tell.

[Crazy Dud]

Originally posted by Shockwave
This has happend with amny directors/writers in my opinion. The first work they do is often the best because they have had a life-time to get it right, but after they become a hit, they try to keep the ball rolling with hit and hit, but without enough time taken to really get things right.

I say he needs to adapt other peoples work for abit, OR take more time in-between movies to really get a grip on the story hes trying to tell.

Exactly right! I feel that he has faltered as of late by sticking to his "every 2 years" schedule. Most filmmakers cannot churn out that many great films that rapidly. His early works were ones he had spent a lot more time on, and I believe if he begins to slow down on his films, he'll find his greatness again.

Night, slow down, man! Remember . . . quality over quantity.