The Happening marketing SUCKS

[adamjohnson]

In this VILLAGE...

They SENSE something...

The SIGNS....

are UNBREAKABLE

And there are... LADIES.... in WATER....

WTF is this shit?

They did this with his last TWO movies, and they were financial disasters. Cant they think of a new tactic?

The redband trailer kicks ass. Take out the gore and theres your trailer.

God damn.

[Homyrrh]

At the 'Iron Man' previews, they showed one for this. At the end of the trailer (trailers don't warrant spoilers, sorry...), when Marky Mark goes "WHAT'S HAPPENING?!?!?!?!", then the narrator says the title..."'THE HAPPENING'".

And no joke, I thought I was being a dick for laughing at it, but the ENTIRE theater, the hundreds there were, were geeking right along with me. THis was an entirely serious suspense film and we were universally geeking at it...

[Donnie_Darko]

Gotta take as much piss out of this movie as possible, thereby lowering expectations to a crawl, so you might come out going "Not bad actually." This looks like a can of trash... but so did Lady In The Water, and I LOVED it. Juxtaposed to Unbreakable, which looked great, but was a feted sack of shit!

And yes... that is HORRIBLE promotion. :eek::rolleyes:

[echo_bravo]

Its almost sad how far M. Night's reputation has fallen. After the Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, he was basically untouchable and was already being tainted the next Spielberg.

Now? The dude is being compared to Ed Wood and it looks like there will be more Razzies in his future.

The dude has the ability to be a DAMN talented filmmaker. I thought The Village was beautifully shot and is very underrated. With that said, he needs to desperately find a talented screenwriter to work with.

[tbone]

Its almost sad how far M. Night's reputation has fallen. After the Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, he was basically untouchable and was already being tainted the next Spielberg.

Now? The dude is being compared to Ed Wood and it looks like there will be more Razzies in his future.

The dude has the ability to be a DAMN talented filmmaker. I thought The Village was beautifully shot and is very underrated. With that said, he needs to desperately find a talented screenwriter to work with.

totally - the dude does great camerawork -- but his head has really swollen -- take some time away find a good script he didnt write

[LordSimen]

I don't get the hate for Shamalan. If his only film was the Village, then I'd understand it. But that's not his only film. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are two masterpieces, then you add onto that the good films Lady in the Water and Signs, and his filmography looks pretty damn good. The Happening's marketing does indeed suck, but so does the title. I'm looking forward to it but there's only so many puns you can make with the word 'happen" in it until it gets a little annoying.

[Raoul Duke]

Word on the street is that Happening has Shyamalan's most retarded twist yet.

Unbreakable was awesome, though.

[someguy]

M. Night Shyamalan is a good director but he needs control. The reason why he left Disney and went to WB was because the studio kept trying to change his 'original vision' for Lady in The Water. I'm usually one for directors having complete creative control but for Shyamalan I think he should have his scripts put under major rewrites or just direct other people's scripts.

The quality of his films keep dropping as time goes on. You say that Lady is a good film but I think based on audience and critic reception you would be more in the minority. Look at the metacritic scores for his movies from when he was starting out (Sixth Sense) and then see the pattern as he begins to gain more control on his films.

Sixth Sense (64%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/sixthsense/)
Unbreakable (62%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/unbreakable/)
Signs (59%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/signs?q=signs)
The Village (44%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/village/)
Lady in The Water (36%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/ladyinthewater)

The Happening looks like it's only going to continue in the downward direction like his previous films. The guy has pretty much squandered his success from The Sixth Sense. He also seems to come off like he's a bit egotistical and the fact that he cast himself as a writer who would save the world in one of his films doesn't really help people think he isn't a little bit full of himself. I hope the guy will get his head out of his ass one day and either drop writing altogether or get some people in there to help him out.

[Homyrrh]

Fun Fact: Bruce Willis banked $100+ million off of 'The Sixth Sense' per his royalty contract. Highest paid role ever.

[LordSimen]

Sixth Sense (64%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/sixthsense/)
Unbreakable (62%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/unbreakable/)
Signs (59%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/signs?q=signs)
The Village (44%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/village/)
Lady in The Water (36%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/ladyinthewater)


I honestly think Lady in the Water would be in the 50's, not the 30's, if it had come before The Village.

[someguy]

I'm not too sure about that. By that time the Shyamalan hate was strong anyways and stuff like the movie critic and Shyamalan's role in LITW were more offensive/bad than anything in The Village.

[adamjohnson]

I'm not too sure about that. By that time the Shyamalan hate was strong anyways and stuff like the movie critic and Shyamalan's role in LITW were more offensive/bad than anything in The Village.


I agree. I thought LITW was quite good except for those two bits. (And actually quite scary for a few moments)

I wish Shamy would make a straight horror picture, balls to the walls, like Hills Have Eyes or something. I guarantee it would be terrifying.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Sixth Sense (64%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/sixthsense/)
Unbreakable (62%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/unbreakable/)
Signs (59%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/signs?q=signs)
The Village (44%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/village/)
Lady in The Water (36%) (http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/ladyinthewater)

Holy crap. I seriously was under the impression "The Sixth Sense" was way, way, way better reviewed. I was expecting it to be in the high 80's-low 90's.

[echo_bravo]

^^^^
No kidding. Isnt the Sixth Sense in AFI's 100 Best Films?

[LordSimen]

I'm not too sure about that. By that time the Shyamalan hate was strong anyways and stuff like the movie critic and Shyamalan's role in LITW were more offensive/bad than anything in The Village.

There was nothing offensive or bad about it and I'm tired people are making it more than it is.

He was just playing a role. Just like every other movie he's made, he was playing a role. There wasn't some gigantic huge symbolism behind it, it was a role. As for the movie critic, I thought it was funny. Nothing offensive about it.

Plus, it was a good movie. Great acting, great suspense. Some really breathtaking parts. Honestly if critics would just take their heads out their ass and actually review the movie and stop thinking too hard on whether or not they like him as a person and instead think of him as a director they would have realized this as well.

[someguy]

There was nothing offensive or bad about it and I'm tired people are making it more than it is.

He was just playing a role. Just like every other movie he's made, he was playing a role. There wasn't some gigantic huge symbolism behind it, it was a role. As for the movie critic, I thought it was funny. Nothing offensive about it.

I can see this argument in The Village where he played that small role (won't say for spoilers). I can see it in Signs as the driver. I can see it in his other movies but I can't see it for LITW. Shyamalan is a writer and in the film he is playing a writer that will go on and save the world with his work. I think it's impossible to not see a connection there. Intentional or not it comes off as pretty egotistical to cast yourself in such a role.

Honestly if critics would just take their heads out their ass and actually review the movie and stop thinking too hard on whether or not they like him as a person and instead think of him as a director they would have realized this as well.

Can you support what you're saying about critics having their heads up their asses over him with some sort of evidence? You disagree with the consensus of critics over this film, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're wrong for not liking it or that you're wrong for liking it. You just enjoyed the movie and they didn't. I liked The Fountain when it has an average in the 50s on Metacritic. Do I think the critics have it wrong? No, I can see where people can find the movie flawed and just agree to disagree.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Oh someguy, you should know better.

LordSimen, when he means offensive, I assure you he doesn't mean it in the way you're taking it.

[LordSimen]

I can see this argument in The Village where he played that small role (won't say for spoilers). I can see it in Signs as the driver. I can see it in his other movies but I can't see it for LITW. Shyamalan is a writer and in the film he is playing a writer that will go on and save the world with his work. I think it's impossible to not see a connection there. Intentional or not it comes off as pretty egotistical to cast yourself in such a role.


There's a connection there but not the connection you seem to think there is.

Lady in the Water was a bedtime story he told his kids. He was in the movie because it was his story, and he was the one who'd tell the story to his kids. It was meant for them. There's NOTHING egotistical about it.


Can you support what you're saying about critics having their heads up their asses over him with some sort of evidence? You disagree with the consensus of critics over this film, I wouldn't necessarily say that they're wrong for not liking it or that you're wrong for liking it. You just enjoyed the movie and they didn't. I liked The Fountain when it has an average in the 50s on Metacritic. Do I think the critics have it wrong? No, I can see where people can find the movie flawed and just agree to disagree.

YOU provided the evidence for me. You implied that the reason the movie was rated lower because critics found Shamalan offensive. That doesn't matter. What does matter is whether the movie is good or not, not whether or not it is offensive. That's having their head up their ass.

And yes, I know the critics are wrong. I don't just think it. I know it. They're not reviewing it as a movie. I won't agree to disagree to this because I'm tired of seeing this movie get shit on for no reason. There's nothing offensive about the movie.

[JohnLocke2342]

oh my goddddd here we go.

Anyway, I think M. Night Shamalalalalamamayan is pretty cool. I dug sixth sense, was bored through unbreakable ( saw it later, liked it a lil bit more), I really REALLY dug Signs, didn't like the village or Lady too much. This one does look much better tho, in my, uneccessary opinion.:cool:

[Cop No. 633]

For God's sake, the movie was crap! Drop it already. Shyamalan's biggest enemy isn't critics, it's himself. Some Guy pointed it out already, he needs to stop writing his films. His characters are some of the most flat dramatic characters I've encountered. Every film gets worse. It's not rocket science. There is no agenda to destroy his career, it just so happens that he makes films people don't like, including me. Even if he wasn't in Lady in the Water, it'd still be a boring mess of a movie.

Do you honestly believe the only reason people faulted Lady in the Water was because of his role? That's ridiculous.

"Oh, man this movie is great! Wait, what?! He cast himself as a writer who will save the world? Never mind, this movie is terrible."

[Gordon]

There's a connection there but not the connection you seem to think there is.

Lady in the Water was a bedtime story he told his kids. He was in the movie because it was his story, and he was the one who'd tell the story to his kids. It was meant for them. There's NOTHING egotistical about it.

Shamylan made a book about himself.

And I quote:

If [LitW] came together, it would be like Dylan and Clapton and Springsteen and Eminem and Kanye West and Miles Davis and Bonnie Raitt and Joan Armatrading and Jerry Garcia and every musician you've ever loved joining George Harrison and belting out the opening chord of 'A Hard Day's Night' at the same time."

[on demanding execs read his scripts on their days off] "[Shyamalan] was comfortable getting in the middle of people's weekend. He felt that the reading of his script should not be considered work. It should add to the weekend's pleasure."

"If you're a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney - if you're M. Night Shyamalan -"

[LordSimen]

Shamylan made a book about himself.

And I quote:

If [LitW] came together, it would be like Dylan and Clapton and Springsteen and Eminem and Kanye West and Miles Davis and Bonnie Raitt and Joan Armatrading and Jerry Garcia and every musician you've ever loved joining George Harrison and belting out the opening chord of 'A Hard Day's Night' at the same time."

[on demanding execs read his scripts on their days off] "[Shyamalan] was comfortable getting in the middle of people's weekend. He felt that the reading of his script should not be considered work. It should add to the weekend's pleasure."

"If you're a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney - if you're M. Night Shyamalan -"


I'm afraid I don't see your point.

[SkyNet]

you know.. before The Sixth Sense.. the man DID Direct and write a flick with fuckin Rosie O'Donnell!! (Wide Awake i think its called)

i think The Happening looks awesome, and cant wait to see it.. th ebig problem is this opening opposite Hulk, and i think it is going to go down against Hulk

[Gordon]

I'm afraid I don't see your point.

The man's the most arrogant motherfucker in the history of humanity.

[MidnightAngel]

It ain't the marketting, the film sucks!

[someguy]

While I disagree with 100% of LordSimen says (and I'm sure a lot of people reading this thread feels the same) I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

[LordSimen]

The man's the most arrogant motherfucker in the history of humanity.

How so?

[X-Nightcrawler]

How so?

Well, kid, you gotta put more attention to what he says, there, kitten.

Oh crap, see how condescending that sounds? Someone might read it and go "Well it isn't condescending, I don't see it. It's just how X is." but it's still condescending and arrogant.

How's that?
*waits for tests results*

[LordSimen]

Well, kid, you gotta put more attention to what he says, there, kitten.

Oh crap, see how condescending that sounds? Someone might read it and go "Well it isn't condescending, I don't see it. It's just how X is." but it's still condescending and arrogant.

How's that?
*waits for tests results*

What the hell are you talking about? :confused:

[X-Nightcrawler]

What the hell are you talking about? :confused:The man is being a condescending wiseass and you're not noticing it, there, kid.

[LordSimen]

The man is being a condescending wiseass and you're not noticing it, there, kid.

'Eh? :confused:

[X-Nightcrawler]

I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-kiri rock. I need scissors! 61!

[LordSimen]

Yeah. You make no sense...

[X-Nightcrawler]

Do I make no sense, or do I make a lot of sense?

[someguy]

Well, kid, you gotta put more attention to what he says, there, kitten.

Oh crap, see how condescending that sounds? Someone might read it and go "Well it isn't condescending, I don't see it. It's just how X is." but it's still condescending and arrogant.

How's that?
*waits for tests results*

What X is saying here is that he made a statement that is condescending. But someone can look at it and say that it isn't condescending at all because it's just X doing what he usually does. Of course, this is wrong because it's still a condescending statement and the person who made the 'it's just X' explanation is not noticing that there is an amount of condescension.

The point here is that you saying that M. Night Shyamalan's role in Lady in The Water is not an arrogant move because it was for his kids and 'just a role' is not noticing that there is an amount of arrogance for a writer to cast themselves in a role as a writer whose works will save the world.

I just decided to make X's point clear to you Simen.

[LordSimen]

The point here is that you saying that M. Night Shyamalan's role in Lady in The Water is not an arrogant move because it was for his kids and 'just a role' is not noticing that there is an amount of arrogance for a writer to cast themselves in a role as a writer whose works will save the world.



Yeah, but we live in the real world, not X's world. And in the real world there's nothing arrogant about casting yourself in your own movie, one which you made based on a bed time story for your children. Not to mention the movie itself was also meant for your children, and I'm sure nothing would make those kids happier than looking at the screen and saying "Hey look, it's daddy!"

There's nothing arrogant about that. At all.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, but we live in the real world, not X's world. And in the real world there's nothing arrogant about casting yourself in your own movie, one which you made based on a bed time story for your children. Not to mention the movie itself was also meant for your children, and I'm sure nothing would make those kids happier than looking at the screen and saying "Hey look, it's daddy!"

There's nothing arrogant about that. At all.


There's nothing inherently wrong with it, you are right.

Unfortunately for your point, X doesn't keep insisting his world is the best world for a viewing audience, despite continued and increasing negative reception from that audience.

More than one reason has been given for why M. Night is considered arrogant, and to ignore those reasons to pigeon hole an easy out only indicates you are living in M. Night's world and not the real world.

In the real world, people don't say that Lady in the Water got bad reviews because no one liked The Village, especially when The Village has better reviews than Lady in the Water --- How exactly does that reasoning come about?? Are you saying that if people thought The Village was the best movie ever, they would have liked Lady in the Water a lot more? Yes, that's what you seem to be saying.





As for the marketing of this movie, all I have to say is this is the stupidest, most pointless thing I've ever heard....

THE FIRST R-RATED MOVIE FROM M. NIGHT!!!
Then put the R in bold red!!!

I mean, really...

[LordSimen]

In the real world, people don't say that Lady in the Water got bad reviews because no one liked The Village, especially when The Village has better reviews than Lady in the Water --- How exactly does that reasoning come about?? Are you saying that if people thought The Village was the best movie ever, they would have liked Lady in the Water a lot more? Yes, that's what you seem to be saying.



Lady in the Water didn't get trashed for itself. It got trashed for outside reasons beyond it's control, one being people were pissed off at Shamalan for The Village and the other being the critics couldn't take being poked fun of nor could they get their heads out of their asses to just watch the movie. Instead of caring about the reason a person is playing a role how about you pay attention to whether or not he played the damn role well, fucking critics.

[Scarfather]

I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-kiri rock. I need scissors! 61!

An Anemone or Clematis plant's juice can cause a rash. When pruning them, it's a good idea to wear gloves.

[Jig Saw 123]

I wish Shamalan would get back to his old ways like Sixth Sense and Unbreakable. Those were both amazing films, I even loved The Village. But The Happening just looks retarded, maybe he has lost his way, or maybe it's a phase he's going through. I hope he gets back on track after this maybe Avatar will be that film...

[Gordon]

Watching this thread develop is a lot like watching an autistic child running through an obstacle course.

[Cop No. 633]

haha, you could have a video of Shyamalan comparing himself to Dylan and Michael Jordan and that still wouldn't be enough to convince LS that he's arrogant.

What I love most is his conspiracy that all the critics are out to get Shyamalan. Most critics want to like more films, hell, that's why they have that job. The problem isn't the critics, it's there's a great many films that are painfully mediorce and thus they often get that rating. Transformers got middle of the road reviews because the film was terribly written and acted despite the FX being solid as a rock. What most critics judge films by are usually the story/script, acting, directing, camera work... the meat and potatoes of film. They couldn't careless if there's great gore or action scenes in a movie because the film could have a bad story and/or crappy characters. But I'll end that there before he thinks I'm part of the conspiracy.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Yeah, but we live in the real world, not X's world. Now, are you sure, Mr. Anderson?

[LordSimen]

haha, you could have a video of Shyamalan comparing himself to Dylan and Michael Jordan and that still wouldn't be enough to convince LS that he's arrogant.

An artist comparing himself to other artists isn't arrogant. All artists do that in some way or another.

[Scarfather]

Hemingway's got nothing on me!

[Gordon]

An artist comparing himself to other artists isn't arrogant. All artists do that in some way or another.

"...it would be like Dylan and Clapton and Springsteen and Eminem and Kanye West and Miles Davis and Bonnie Raitt and Joan Armatrading and Jerry Garcia and every musician you've ever loved joining George Harrison..."

Logic is fucking stupid.

[LordSimen]

"...it would be like Dylan and Clapton and Springsteen and Eminem and Kanye West and Miles Davis and Bonnie Raitt and Joan Armatrading and Jerry Garcia and every musician you've ever loved joining George Harrison..."

Sounds like an artist name dropping other artists he admires in order to describe how he feels about his project. And what he feels is absolute devotion and passion. What's arrogant about that?

[therealjohng]

Sounds like an artist name dropping other artists he admires in order to describe how he feels about his project. And what he feels is absolute devotion and passion. What's arrogant about that?



Are you fucking with us or do you honestly believe all of this?

[Badbird]

As for the marketing of this movie, all I have to say is this is the stupidest, most pointless thing I've ever heard....

THE FIRST R-RATED MOVIE FROM M. NIGHT!!!
Then put the R in bold red!!!

I mean, really...

I know! I saw that too and was like, WTF?

Of course, how sad is it when you have to promote an R rated movie like an event anymore? R rated movies used to dominate the industry, and now there's, like, five a year.

[JohnLocke2342]

the only thing I can say is that it's from M. Night who is known for having a creepy little mind. A lot of people think M. Night makes some scary ass creepy intense movies.. now if you put his name in the same sentence as an R rated movie u go.. wait, holy shit, this movie can be FUCKED UP.

[The Postmaster General]

Lady in the Water didn't get trashed for itself. It got trashed for outside reasons beyond it's control, one being people were pissed off at Shamalan for The Village and the other being the critics couldn't take being poked fun of nor could they get their heads out of their asses to just watch the movie. Instead of caring about the reason a person is playing a role how about you pay attention to whether or not he played the damn role well, fucking critics.


I was actually just in a chat with another schmoe a couple nights ago, and I was quasi-defending The Village as a decent flick, although saying the twist was an issue for me (for odd reasons you can't guess...).

Yet I really didn't like Lady In The Water. (Haven't seen Signs)

So, I liked The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village, but your reasoning is that the only reason I would have to not like Lady in the Water is because of M. Night?

LOL.

Of course your reasoning is that I don't represent the rest of the world --- Well, that, and that M. Night is a humble person without a trace of arrogance...

What you say is that people hate LITW because of M. Night's role, and let me tell you -- this thread is the first I've hard of that. All I've heard was that it was a boring mess, which is what I felt too. How does that add up to some conspiracy against M. Night?

If anything, you are the one who is conspiring to defend M. Night. You are actually creating situations contrary to facts and propagating them. Everyone else is just saying they didn't like the movie, and they think M. Night is arrogant.

[Kevin Smith fan]

I saw an ad the other night during the NBA conference finals which made it a point to mention that this was "M. Night Shamylan's first R-rated film" over 5 times in a spot less than 4 minutes long which makes me think the rating is only there to sucker in audiences.

[JohnLocke2342]

I enjoyed the sixth sense, and was bored during unbreakable, I LOVED SIGNS, i kinda enjoyed the village, and i thought lady in the water was a cool little fantasy fair tale movie, I dug it.

I think The Happening looks pretty cool

[LordSimen]

Are you fucking with us or do you honestly believe all of this?

What are you talking about? You're the one who doesn't make any sense here. There's nothing arrogant about those statements.

[LordSimen]

What you say is that people hate LITW because of M. Night's role, and let me tell you -- this thread is the first I've hard of that. All I've heard was that it was a boring mess, which is what I felt too. How does that add up to some conspiracy against M. Night?

If anything, you are the one who is conspiring to defend M. Night. You are actually creating situations contrary to facts and propagating them. Everyone else is just saying they didn't like the movie, and they think M. Night is arrogant.

This is the first time I've seen anyone say a reason OTHER than M. Night's role. I remember whent he movie came out the entire fucking thread on the movie devolved into people arguing over M. Night's role. Sorry, but a vast majority of the freakin people who bash the movie and didn't like it tend to mention those two things first.

[adamjohnson]

I know! I saw that too and was like, WTF?

Of course, how sad is it when you have to promote an R rated movie like an event anymore? R rated movies used to dominate the industry, and now there's, like, five a year.


Hitchcock did the EXACT same thing with Frenzy, his only R-rated film.

[darknite125]

Its almost sad how far M. Night's reputation has fallen. After the Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, he was basically untouchable and was already being tainted the next Spielberg.

Now? The dude is being compared to Ed Wood and it looks like there will be more Razzies in his future.

The dude has the ability to be a DAMN talented filmmaker. I thought The Village was beautifully shot and is very underrated. With that said, he needs to desperately find a talented screenwriter to work with.

I completely agree the man is an incredibly talened director but I think he when he comes up with an idea for a movie he should get a professional screenwriter to hammer it out for him.

[a7xfan]

christ ls are you in love with this guy or something.

its blatantly obvious that he is one of the most arrogant dicks in hollywood.

[Moviefan1234]

christ ls its blatantly obvious that he is one of the most arrogant dicks in hollywood.

Says you.

[X-Nightcrawler]

its blatantly obvious that he is one of the most arrogant dicks in hollywood.
http://pageperso.aol.fr/loverangels0705/images/aragorn.jpg
"You have my sword."

[TheJadedGamer]

I laughed out-loud at the TV spot.

Shitty, shitty marketing.

[LordSimen]

its blatantly obvious that he is one of the most arrogant dicks in hollywood.

Says who? I've yet to see anyone come up with a credible reason WHY he's apparently so "arrogant." Thus far none of the reasons have made any lick of sense.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Says who? I've yet to see anyone come up with a credible reason WHY he's apparently so "arrogant." Thus far none of the reasons have made any lick of sense.No, your inhuman ability to rationalize stuff is what doesn't make a lick of sense.

"I am Ration-O! I can imagine reasons why Charles Mason should be Pope and Hitlerism a new religion and convince only myself!"

[LordSimen]

"I am Ration-O! I can imagine reasons why Charles Mason should be Pope and Hitlerism a new religion and convince only myself!"

What the fuck are you talking about? Now you're comparing him to Charles Manson and Hitler?

Seriously. You make NO FUCKING SENSE. He's just a film maker who makes films he's passionate about. THAT'S IT. Stop trying to make it more than it is.

[therealjohng]

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~kacollin/images/HeadInHands.jpg

[X-Nightcrawler]

What the fuck are you talking about? Now you're comparing him to Charles Manson and Hitler?

Seriously. You make NO FUCKING SENSE. He's just a film maker who makes films he's passionate about. THAT'S IT. Stop trying to make it more than it is.

Yes, I am comparing Shayamalan to Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler.

But this has totally dried out its fun, now, so I'll stop for reals.

[LordSimen]

Yes, I am comparing Shayamalan to Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler.

But this has totally dried out its fun, now, so I'll stop for reals.

How can you sit there and say I don't make sense and then compare Shayamalan to Hitler and Manson. Comparing Shayamalan to Charles Manson and Adolt Hitler doesn't make any sense what so ever.

[therealjohng]

Everyone just stop. He's obviously not gonna get it. Just move on and let this die.

[The Heart Collector]

haha, you could have a video of Shyamalan comparing himself to Dylan and Michael Jordan and that still wouldn't be enough to convince LS that he's arrogant.


It's gonna have to be a comparison to someone with more integrity. Jonathan Davis, perhaps.

[Lazy Boy]

I'm a big fan of MNS and even this is embarrassing me.

Anyway...there are a lot of directors who are just as egotistical (or more so) than Shyamalan (coughEliRothQuentinTarantinoKevinSmithcough), so it's a little bit much to see him singled out. But, yes, he has a big ego. I ain't denying it, I read the Bamberger book.

[LordSimen]

(coughEliRothQuentinTarantinoKevinSmithcough)

I can see Tarantino's ego, but I don't see Smith or Roth's. Not at all. They're fan boys not egomaniacs.

[EvilHenchman]

M. Night's cameo on "Entourage" was rather cool. I'm presuming he was okay with the show having a fun with him at his expense. So, I guess I'm here offering that as evidence of his lack of ego or arrogance.

And I agree: The Happening, sadly, looks like another trip down M. Night Surprise Twist Lane.

[someguy]

I'm a big fan of MNS and even this is embarrassing me.

Anyway...there are a lot of directors who are just as egotistical (or more so) than Shyamalan (coughEliRothQuentinTarantinoKevinSmithcough), so it's a little bit much to see him singled out. But, yes, he has a big ego. I ain't denying it, I read the Bamberger book.

Yeah but there's a difference with those directors and Shyamalan. M. Night is actually talented at directing but his films are taking a nosedive in quality so his ego can be taken at fault (despite LordSimen's constant cries saying there is NO evidence of an ego or arrogance by the casting of Shyamalan in LITW as an amazing writer or making a film critic as a character who was meant to be hated it's insane to deny to say that anyone can't pick up a scent of arrogance from it).

I think the fact that X's joke that just made references to Charles Manson and Hitler to use an extreme exaggeration for the sake of it was interpreted as a comparison of M. Night to Hitler and Manson (here's a hint Simen: it wasn't a comparison at all) shows what we're dealing with when we try to have a serious discussion/debate.

[LordSimen]

Yeah but there's a difference with those directors and Shyamalan. M. Night is actually talented at directing but his films are taking a nosedive in quality so his ego can be taken at fault (despite LordSimen's constant cries saying there is NO evidence of an ego or arrogance by the casting of Shyamalan in LITW as an amazing writer or making a film critic as a character who was meant to be hated it's insane to deny to say that anyone can't pick up a scent of arrogance from it).

I've already explained how him casting himself in a part of a bedtime story he told his kids wasn't an act of ego. As for the critic part, A lot of people hate critics, not just M. Night Shayamalan. Does that make them all egotistical too? No. It just means they hate critics. simple as that.


I think the fact that X's joke that just made references to Charles Manson and Hitler to use an extreme exaggeration for the sake of it was interpreted as a comparison of M. Night to Hitler and Manson (here's a hint Simen: it wasn't a comparison at all) shows what we're dealing with when we try to have a serious discussion/debate.

If there wasn't a comparison, why say it? Why make the comparison in the first place if that wasn't the intent? That makes no fucking sense.

If it was a joke he should have stated it was a joke, because it wasn't funny nor did it contribute anything.

[thedudeman69]

Says you.



OMG< HE'S NOT WRONG. HIS OPINON IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH>

[someguy]

If casting himself was to just do it for his kids couldn't he have easily put himself in a role as another tenant of the apartment building? And do you think that disliking critics and going out of your way to write in a dislikable character who is a critic are the same thing? I'm sure many filmmakers dislike critics but there's a difference from simple dislike and doing what Shyamalan did.

The joke was in reference to your rationalization skills which X believes are poor. He decided to use hyperbole in order to give a humourous example of someone who rationalizes poorly. The joke wasn't even referring or comparing M. Night Shyamalan to anything, it was referring to you and specifically your rationalizations which, according to X, are nonsensical. He established this by saying before the joke that your rationalization skills do not make a lick of sense which was to provide a proper context of the joke he was about to make. The joke used a lot of absurdity and hyperbole in order to establish that it was a joke which many people picked up on (you didn't and saw it as a direct comparison to M. Night Shyamalan which it wasn't and if you still think it is a comparison to Shyamalan ask X since he wrote it). Now you didn't find it funny but as we know comedy is subjective (to be honest I found it kind of funny).

[thedudeman69]

the mods should close this thread for lack of reasoning/logic.

[LordSimen]

If casting himself was to just do it for his kids couldn't he have easily put himself in a role as another tenant of the apartment building? And do you think that disliking critics and going out of your way to write in a dislikable character who is a critic are the same thing? I'm sure many filmmakers dislike critics but there's a difference from simple dislike and doing what Shyamalan did.



There is no difference. Sorry. He hates critics, so he made a part of a character who was a critic that was unlikeable. I don't see what's so wrong about that. Lots of film makers hate a lot of things and tend to put characters in their films that reflect that hate, so I don't see how Shayamalan doing it with critics is somehow an egotistical move. It isn't.

And he casted himself in the part he wanted to cast himself in. He is the director, after all, his vision guides the project. If he wants to play that character, he will play it. I don't see how that's a problem.

How is this any different than Mel Gibson casting himself as William Wallace, or any other director-actor casting themselves in a position of high regard. I don't see a problem with it and I don't see anything egotistical about it.


The joke was in reference to your rationalization skills which X believes are poor. He decided to use hyperbole in order to give a humourous example of someone who rationalizes poorly. The joke wasn't even referring or comparing M. Night Shyamalan to anything, it was referring to you and specifically your rationalizations which, according to X, are nonsensical. He established this by saying before the joke that your rationalization skills do not make a lick of sense which was to provide a proper context of the joke he was about to make. The joke used a lot of absurdity and hyperbole in order to establish that it was a joke which many people picked up on (you didn't and saw it as a direct comparison to M. Night Shyamalan which it wasn't and if you still think it is a comparison to Shyamalan ask X since he wrote it). Now you didn't find it funny but as we know comedy is subjective (to be honest I found it kind of funny).


What the hell are talking about? My reasoning actually makes sense.

Either way, a joke doesn't belong. There's no point in entering a debate or an argument for the sole purpose of casting pointless jokes that make no sense.

[Lazy Boy]

While I disagree with 100% of LordSimen says (and I'm sure a lot of people reading this thread feels the same) I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0

[therealjohng]

Everyone just stop. He's obviously not gonna get it. Just move on and let this die.


I was serious as a heart attack when I said this.

[someguy]

I went back on it because I'm bored and wanted to entertain Simen. Seeing how he responds to my explanation of how X's joke isn't a comparison to M. Night with 'i'm right' it shows me how no matter how much you dumb something down he'll manage to twist it into fitting his train of thought.

[therealjohng]

Fine. But this should just die, because this is just like driving your car in park.

[LordSimen]

I went back on it because I'm bored and wanted to entertain Simen. Seeing how he responds to my explanation of how X's joke isn't a comparison to M. Night with 'i'm right' it shows me how no matter how much you dumb something down he'll manage to twist it into fitting his train of thought.

You expect me to take the time to DEBATE you on someone trying to personally insult me? Sorry, I don't fucking debate that.

If X's intent was to attack me personally then X's point was irrelevant, I don't debate with people whose only way of making a point is attacking their opponent.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Oh get the hell over it, it's a joke. It wasn't a particularly vicious attack or anything, there's no reason to get defensive and playing victimized.


If X's intent was to attack me personally then X's point was irrelevant, I don't debate with people whose only way of making a point is attacking their opponent.Really? Because you've been doing it for an entire page.

But really, this isn't the least bit fun anymore. Not even in the friendly poking sense.

[someguy]

you realize we have all the intentions of debating or discussing seriously about these topics but you drive us to a point of pure frustration that might actually be physically unhealthy right?

[LordSimen]

Oh get the hell over it, it's a joke. It wasn't a particularly vicious attack or anything, there's no reason to get defensive and playing victimized.

That's not the way Someguy described it. Take it up with him.


Really? Because you've been doing it for an entire page.


How so? Explain.

[someguy]

X, for the record, can you state if your Ration-O joke was intended as a comparison to M. Night Shyamalan? I would like LordSimen to be clear on this matter.

[X-Nightcrawler]

That's not the way Someguy described it. Take it up with him.Fine. Hey someguy! LordSimen seems to have misunderstood. But that's all right.


How so? Explain.Don't think so.

So! That Happening marketing sure sucks.

X, for the record, can you state if your Ration-O joke was intended as a comparison to M. Night Shyamalan? I would like LordSimen to be clear on this matter.Aww, what for? I'm totally out of this.

[LordSimen]

Don't think so.


Because you HAVE no explanation for your attack on me. Good. Now go back to your own little world were personally insulting people somehow makes your side right.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Because you HAVE no explanation for your attack on me. Good. Now go back to your own little world were personally insulting people somehow makes your side right.Yes I do. Because it's a joke and it immediately makes my side right-

GODAMMIT YOU'RE GOOD!

Someone please close this thread before there are actual attacks.

[someguy]

Aww, what for? I'm totally out of this.

Let's just get this over with and show that his original interpretation was wrong. There's no need to prolong it.

[LordSimen]

Someone please close this thread before there are actual attacks.

Too late. You already actually attacked me, if Someguy's explanation of your "joke" is correct.

[Shinigami]

Oh for crying out loud! It's perfectly reasonable to think M. Night a very passionate filmaker instead of a very egotistical one (although a lot of times this can go hand in hand). Stephen King, for example, actually inserted himself into his Dark Tower epic. And he did this to a much greater extent than M. Night with Lady.
Yet few readers say boo about that. It's almost like people can see what they want to see from the artists they admire or hate, which is perfectly fine and dandy.

Give it a rest.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Give it a rest.Uh . . . we kinda had?

[Mr.HyDe807]

So.....the ebola virus....thats gotta suck huh?

[therealjohng]

I don't think there's anything left to say in this thread. I mean the kitchen sink has made an appearance. Someone just do the "/thread" thing so we can just close this thing.

[Scarfather]

This may be the lowest a thread has sunk ever.

Alright everyone, nothing to see here, exit over that pile of rancid shit to your left, or we have enough Darvon cocktails for everyone on your right.

Drive safe or sleep tight, hope you enjoyed the show!

[Shinigami]

Uh . . . we kinda had?

Oh. My bad on that one. I figured you guys might keep at it for another two pages.

Otherwise, I read the script review of this movie, and I don't like the sound of it. Sixth Sense was amazing. So was unbreakable and signs, but he's had trouble with his movies ever since. If The Happening sucks (and bombs), the last hope for Night is Avatar. Which should be interesting. It's source material he is translating, so maybe that will make the difference. I think he can be a great director, and he also works well with his actors. Here's hoping that he pulls himself together.
It's just too bad that he never made his proposed Unbreakable trilogy. That would've been great...

[Mr.HyDe807]

Anyways, to the actual topic at hand, although the marketing sucks (as well as the word of mouth), i still have an itching to check this movie out. i don't know, it's got that Stephen King vibe of the end of the world.....even though the cause of it seems very silly.

[DME]

The marketing's emphasis on the R-rating displays a disturbing lack of confidence in the actual film itself.

Conversely, the fact that they're highlighting that it's Shyamalan's first R-rated film seems to reveal an overconfidence in the director's name credibility.

Once upon a time I was excited for this movie. Now, decidedly not.

[plantpage55]

Hell, LordSimen is obviously fucking with everyone here, because there's no way a human being could access the internet and yet not comprehend any of the reasonable arguments laid before him - all the while retorting with opinions raised as facts. Such as the FACT that he KNOWS that the critics were wrong. Yeah, that's a fact all right. There's no chance that movie was really lame and bad...nope.

The Happening, however, looks to be an even bigger turd. A director that can NOT direct actors beyond their base talent paired with Marky Mark = "...with whom?!"

[JCPhoenix]

This is possibly the most frustrating thread I've read on JoBlo since I first registered o_O.

Lady in the Water was trashed because...PEOPLE. DIDN'T. LIKE IT. It's really that simple. Is it really that farfetched to think that people simply didn't like a movie? Or is it more farfetched to create this nationwide conspiracy of critics against Shyamalan because they didn't like his previous film?

LordSimen can think that Shyamalan isn't arrogant and that's okay. Those of us who think that Shyamalan casting himself as the writer who saves the world (that's the key for me) is a sign of egotism can continue thinking that. Those of us who thought Lady in the Water was one of the dullest snorefests we've ever seen can continue thinking that.

Besides the arrogance of casting himself as the above character, the movie is quite literally done like a bedtime story a parent makes up on the spot. And by that, I mean there's no logic and the movie works as if things are just being made up as they go along. What does that mean? We can't invest anything in the story because anything could just RANDOMLY happen. There's no internal logic to the world. Just because he decided to make a "bedtime story" doesn't make it a good idea or a good movie. It's quite simple really. The majority of movies need some kind of minimum world logic to the way they work. The movie universe doesn't have to follow the rules of reality but it DOES have to follow some form of internal rules. Otherwise, what do we have to invest in? It's like a deus ex machina every 5 minutes. It's fucking ridiculous.

Man, anyone could write a movie like Lady in the Water. Seriously, just throw random ideas at the screen and continue doing that for 120 pages. Throw in some monkeys at the end. You've got a movie.

Bringing things back to the original point of the thread - in terms of The Happening's marketing (to bring it back to the original topic...) - I agree about the bad marketing. I've been seeing so many horrible ads for it that I really think this movie is gonna bomb. The first teaser was promisingly creepy but since then, it seems like most of the TV spots are borderline laughable.

On Yahoo movies, there was a clip from the movie introduced by M. Night Shyamalan and that clip was actually almost cringeworthy in how bad it was. The dialogue was not natural and the acting in both Wahlberg AND Deschanel's cases were awful (actually I know the early script review said Wahlberg was horrible but based on that clip it seemed to me that Deschanel was even worse). Strange, especially because I like both Wahlberg and Deschanel normally - to me the only reason for this is something to do with Shyamalan's directing or else the editing.

Either way does not bode well for this film. For the record - I really enjoyed The Sixth Sense, I love Unbreakable and like most of Signs but The Village and Lady in the Water were two of my most hated movies of those years respectively. I thought I'd give Shyamalan another shot with The Happening, especially cause I thought the idea was kind of creepy and neat (I actually like the idea of the "villain" in the film) and I've always like him as a visual stylist (it's the writing that he's needed to work on) but the marketing and that clip have really disappointed me big time so far. I'll reserve judgement till I see it but this has moved from a movie that I was thinking of seeing in theatres to a firm "wait for DVD" release.

[notchreturns]

Hopefully after Happening bombs no more major studios will touch his films and Night will have to start making STV films with Christian Slater/Tara Reid crowd.

[LordSimen]

Hell, LordSimen is obviously fucking with everyone here, because there's no way a human being could access the internet and yet not comprehend any of the reasonable arguments laid before him

What reasonable arguments? Because I've read none thus far.


Such as the FACT that he KNOWS that the critics were wrong. Yeah, that's a fact all right. There's no chance that movie was really lame and bad...nope.

I do know the critics were wrong. Dead wrong. Completly and utterly wrong. Why? Because I know 90% of them didn't judge the movie as a movie, but instead used the movie to set forth their bias created by both the critic character, Shayamalan casting himself in his own movie and the Village. I read tons of reviews when that movie came out and most of them tended to refer to those three things exclusively more than the actual movie.


Lady in the Water was trashed because...PEOPLE. DIDN'T. LIKE IT. It's really that simple. Is it really that farfetched to think that people simply didn't like a movie? Or is it more farfetched to create this nationwide conspiracy of critics against Shyamalan because they didn't like his previous film?


There's nothing farfetched about critics holding grudges just like everyone else, my friend.

[Scarfather]

Hell, LordSimen is obviously fucking with everyone here, because there's no way a human being could access the internet and yet not comprehend any of the reasonable arguments laid before him - all the while retorting with opinions raised as facts. Such as the FACT that he KNOWS that the critics were wrong. Yeah, that's a fact all right. There's no chance that movie was really lame and bad...nope.


Don't sweat it, LordSimen lives in opposite land.

[plantpage55]

What reasonable arguments? Because I've read none thus far.

You're hilarious, dude. You're a fucking riot! Saying you've read none, simply because you dismiss them instantly while giving no legitimate reason to. Saying the reasons you do give are legitimate, basically because you said so - but that no one else's are, because you said so.

That's really fantastic! :D

[Shinigami]

I do know the critics were wrong. Dead wrong. Completly and utterly wrong. Why? Because I know 90% of them didn't judge the movie as a movie, but instead used the movie to set forth their bias created by both the critic character

While I'm totally behind m. night being passionate instead of egotistical, what's this supposed to mean? If you use such standards for critics, that would also mean the positive reviews of Lady were only positive because of some bias about loving whimsical adventures, or faeries, or paul giamatti or something else. Every critic has their own little bias they bring to the table, whether it sways them positively or whether it sways them negatively. Even more absurdly, a bias can only really affect someone when the movie product is sub-par. For example, the truly great horror movies can transcend genre conventions and genre haters - their biases don't mean squat in the face of something actually substantial. Biases are superficial, petty things, after all. And if they affect your opinion of a movie, chances are the movie is likewise petty and superficial.

But even that's a stretch, because general audiences also didn't respond favorably to lady if you look at any indication period - gneral moviegoer ratings, attendance, word of mouth, etc. And the casual moviegoer isn't nerd enough to get some hardcore bias set against a director they still can't place for anything but "the dude that made the bruce willis ghost flick."

[someguy]

Remember, this is LordSimen's argument:

Lady in The Water was a good film, not a bad film at all. Everyone who trashed the movie only did it because they had a personal dislike and bias towards M. Night Shyamalan because of The Village (possibly Signs also). M. Night Shyamalan's casting of himself as a writer who would end up saving the world through his work was not only not egotistical, it does not even give the slightest hint or feeling of an ego. The character of the critic was not an arrogant or childish move either, M. Night Shyamalan was simply stating his dislike of critics which is something many people agree with.

Also I wanted to make a brief response to Shinigami. I was not trying to argue about whether or not M. Night's role was egotistical on his part. I was (originally) trying to explain that it's a fair criticism for people to make because it does come off as somewhat self-serving. I was hoping that Simen could at least agree on the fact that people can interpret what Shyamalan did as arrogant but as you have seen he believes that it's just personal dislike getting in the way of trying to objectively watch something.

[jackson13]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2139/2242364181_6ac31c0589.jpg?v=0

I cant believe I read through all of that.

[LordSimen]

You're hilarious, dude. You're a fucking riot! Saying you've read none, simply because you dismiss them instantly while giving no legitimate reason to. Saying the reasons you do give are legitimate, basically because you said so - but that no one else's are, because you said so.

That's really fantastic! :D

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. I don't need give a reason why I've dismissed logic that doesn't make sense to me, all that matter is that it doesn't make sense. The reason I give are legitimate simply because they make sense, and the other arguments don't.

While I'm totally behind m. night being passionate instead of egotistical, what's this supposed to mean? If you use such standards for critics, that would also mean the positive reviews of Lady were only positive because of some bias about loving whimsical adventures, or faeries, or paul giamatti or something else. Every critic has their own little bias they bring to the table, whether it sways them positively or whether it sways them negatively. Even more absurdly, a bias can only really affect someone when the movie product is sub-par. For example, the truly great horror movies can transcend genre conventions and genre haters - their biases don't mean squat in the face of something actually substantial. Biases are superficial, petty things, after all. And if they affect your opinion of a movie, chances are the movie is likewise petty and superficial.


A little bit of bias comes into every viewing experience, this is true, but the amount of bias that went into the Lady in the Water hate was ten times the amount of normal bias put into the film. The critics were made fun of in the film, therefore they didn't like the film. Simple as that.

[Shinigami]

The critics were made fun of in the film, therefore they didn't like the film. Simple as that.

Then what happened with Ratatouille? :confused:

[Mr.HyDe807]

Okay, so rather than just let to each is own, some schmoes are idiots with logic that makes no sense, and Lordsimen's logic is 100% proven...........

Wow, and your going off on people for being insulting......

[LordSimen]

Okay, so rather than just let to each is own, some schmoes are idiots with logic that makes no sense, and Lordsimen's logic is 100% proven...........

Wow, and your going off on people for being insulting......

Ah yes, because they've totally just let me be with my opinion.

Yeah. Come the fuck on. They started this argument in the first place and they were the first ones to start saying my logic didn't make sense without giving any reason. Try again.

Then what happened with Ratatouille? :confused:

A food critic is hardly a writing or movie critic. But I suppose if they were the same thing, shouldn't Brad Bird be accused of being arrogant and immature for including an evil critic in his film? Oh how dare he!

[LordSimen]

You understand that this place is a discussion board where people debate and discuss with each other right? It wouldn't be a discussion board if everyone just said their opinion and left it at that.

Then don't have your side complain to me about not letting you be left with yours.

[someguy]

Ah yes, because they've totally just let me be with my opinion.


You understand that this place is a discussion board where people debate and discuss with each other right? It wouldn't be a discussion board if everyone just said their opinion and left it at that.

[plantpage55]

A food critic is hardly a writing or movie critic. But I suppose if they were the same thing, shouldn't Brad Bird be accused of being arrogant and immature for including an evil critic in his film? Oh how dare he!

Oh pfffft! You just stepped it up a notch! We now are completely 100% sure that we shouldn't digest anything you say, because you just demonstrated a complete whiff on making connections and using logic. Yes, there is no chance Brad Bird was analyzing criticism in general.

Nope, to fit your fantasy world (where you can toss out arguments that "don't make sense to you" and nitpick and get specific at only your will), Brad Bird was merely making a movie about a food critic.

Well done! It must be fun to sit around and ignorantly have arguments "not make sense" to you. To live in that delusional fantasy world must be great. I envy you.

And if you are happy with that world and Lady in the Water's place in it, then more power to you. But don't try to step into a real discussion about it then. Because you clearly can not handle criticism and difference of opinion yourself. Instead, you earn the contempt of most posters involved.

[LordSimen]

Oh pfffft! You just stepped it up a notch! We now are completely 100% sure that we shouldn't digest anything you say, because you just demonstrated a complete whiff on making connections and using logic. Yes, there is no chance Brad Bird was analyzing criticism in general.

So I suppose Brad Bird should also be accused of arrogance and immaturity too? Thank you for proving my point for me.



Nope, to fit your fantasy world (where you can toss out arguments that "don't make sense to you" and nitpick and get specific at only your will), Brad Bird was merely making a movie about a food critic.

It's not a fantasy world, it's the real world. It's also no different than the rest of these guys have been doing this entire time. The only reason Shayamalan is arrogant is because THEY say he is. The only reason Lady in the Water didn't get trashed because of pure bias is because THEY say it wasn't. They haven't given any other reason.

[plantpage55]

Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe so, but if you didn't understand their points or can't see that they do, in fact "make sense" (whether you agree with them or not is another, separate issue) - then you must not have a very keen intellect. It's simple to at least be able to consider that those points make sense.

Let me demonstrate, I'll bet that a FEW critics DID judge LitW before they even entered the theaters - based on their dislike or tiredness of M. Night. But I certainly don't agree it was 90%. I'm of the opinion that it was closer to 10%.

Considering you seem incapable of comprehending what anyone says in this whole damn thread - I doubt you will be able to make the distinction between the two types of discussion anyway....

[LordSimen]

Maybe so, but if you didn't understand their points or can't see that they do, in fact "make sense" (whether you agree with them or not is another, separate issue) - then you must not have a very keen intellect. It's simple to at least be able to consider that those points make sense.

Now who's insulting who?

They don't make a lick of sense. He's arrogant because he put himself in a film based on a bed time story he told his kids, a movie he also made for his kids as well as himself? That makes him arrogant? Sorry. It doesn't make any sense what so ever.


Let me demonstrate, I'll bet that a FEW critics DID judge LitW before they even entered the theaters - based on their dislike or tiredness of M. Night. But I certainly don't agree it was 90%. I'm of the opinion that it was closer to 10%.

And I'm of the opinion it was closer to 90%.

[plantpage55]

He's arrogant because he put himself in a film based on a bed time story he told his kids, a movie he also made for his kids as well as himself? That makes him arrogant? Sorry. It doesn't make any sense what so ever.
.

Ha ha...again, you only wish to skim the surface. You only are able to see the base plot and not the themes or undertones.

Or the BOLD FACED FACT that he made himself the savior...and he stinks at acting too.

[plantpage55]

So I suppose Brad Bird should also be accused of arrogance and immaturity too? Thank you for proving my point for me.

First of all, Bird did it eloquently in HIS movie. The characters were not piss-poor, cookie-cutter charicatures. But that's just my opinion...oh, and 90% of critics. But I guess we're not allowed to actually think the movie itself was bad. I guess you feel it is above criticism.

Second of all, HE is not the savior of the movie - like M. Night is. Can't you see that THAT was the whole point???!?! Not the mere fact that a critic was a character in the movie!!! Jesus Balls! M. Night made himself the beacon of light in that movie and the critic a laughable baffoon. Insinuating that he is above criticism and that no one can apparently have an honest opinion about his movie stinking without them being a buffoon themselves. It's all in there.

[plantpage55]

Furthermore, you seem to think we're chastizing him solely based on the plot. "Oh, but he did it for his daughters! Oh, but it's a bed-time story for a child!"

IT. WAS. POORLY. EXECUTED. AND. BORING.

And THAT is what we're faulting him for. Good day, sir. Anything you say from here on out is going to be obsolete. Because we're allowed to have an opinion.

Why can't you? Because YOU seem to think it's a fact.

[LordSimen]

First of all, Bird did it eloquently in HIS movie. The characters were not piss-poor, cookie-cutter charicatures. But that's just my opinion...oh, and 90% of critics.

Second of all, HE is not the savior of the movie - like M. Night is. Can't you see that THAT was the whole point???!?! Not the mere fact that a critic was a character in the movie!!! Jesus Balls! M. Night made himself the beacon of light in that movie and the critic a laughable baffoon. Insinuating that he is above criticism and that no one can apparently have an honest opinion about his movie stinking without them being a buffoon themselves. It's all in there.

Mel Gibson was the savior to an entire group of people crying for freedom in Braveheart. Clint Eastwood cast himself as a girl's only hope for making something of herself in Million Dollar Baby, her only beacon of light. Are they arrogant for doing so, or are they just director's casting themselves in parts they believe they can play and also fits within their vision?

I'm more apt to believe that they are just directors casting parts appropriately than arrogant assholes who just want to make themselves look like gods, like you imply Shayamalan was doing. Especially when he was doing so in a BED TIME STORY he told his KIDS and then made into a movie FOR HIS KIDS. To his kids, HE IS GOD. It only makes even more sense that he get casted for the part.

Sorry, there is NOTHING that makes sense about that line of thinking you made. It doesn't take into account the entire situation, just half of of it and ignores the rest.

[LordSimen]

Furthermore, you seem to think we're chastizing him solely based on the plot. "Oh, but he did it for his daughters! Oh, but it's a bed-time story for a child!"

IT. WAS. POORLY. EXECUTED. AND. BORING.

And THAT is what we're faulting him for. Good day, sir. Anything you say from here on out is going to be obsolete. Because we're allowed to have an opinion.

Why can't you? Because YOU seem to think it's a fact.

When the FUCK did I say YOU GUYS weren't allowed to have your opinion on the movie? I'm arguing the critics and their reasons for trashing the movie, not yours. Try again, and next time learn to read.

[plantpage55]

Come on, any single one of us could be a critic! It's the same thing. Jesus, do a little thinking before you post.

Saying the critics are 100% wrong and it's a fact - is the same as saying we are. Because we are all critics. And we agree with THEM. And THEY said it was a poorly executed mish-mash and was boring.

[LordSimen]

Come on, any single one of us could be a critic! It's the same thing. Jesus, do a little thinking before you post.

But you aren't a critic. Just a schmoe. Why DON'T YOU learn to think before YOU POST.


Saying the critics are 100% wrong and it's a fact - is the same as saying we are. Because we are all critics. And we agree with THEM.

None of you are on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, therefore I'm not even arguing you. Try again.

[plantpage55]

But you aren't a critic. Just a schmoe. Why DON'T YOU learn to think before YOU POST.

None of you are on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, therefore I'm not even arguing you. Try again.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that thinks that you separating us from the critics in the way that you are is logical at all. I hope that anyone else that is unfortunate enough to read this far into this topic lets you know how silly what you just said was.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Listen, I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon Lordsimen, but the fact that people are giving their side of the story and your acting that it isn't a worth a damn is the reason certain people are getting frustrated with you, as well as you saying that their logic makes no sense as well. Some people got a little extreme, but others have given valid viewpoints on how they perceive M. Night's work.

Certain critics probably dismissed M. Night's movies because they didn't like the flick itself, and their mind set also saw ways in which M. Night was acting like he was the best filmmaker on the planet, hence them revolving around on certain aspects such as the M Night's character as the savior writer. You may see nothing wrong about it, but other people do.

Do you have any links on these reviews that justify reviewer's resentment on Shamalyan for his previous films?

[LordSimen]

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that thinks that you separating us from the critics in the way that you are is logical at all. I hope that anyone else that is unfortunate enough to read this far into this topic lets you know how silly what you just said was.

Maybe you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that thinks it isn't logical, because it sounds like you know a lot of people who think illogically. But I know other people out there know the difference between a bunch of movie fans on a website and a highly paid critic working for the New York Time.

[someguy]

Then don't have your side complain to me about not letting you be left with yours.

I'm not being rude about this but I seriously do not understand what you're saying here.

You see since this place is built on people discussing things if someone posts something and another person disagrees with it (or agrees with it and wants to expand on what was originally said) they can respond to it. You have an opinion that I disagree with so I responded giving my explanation of why I disagree.

Look, Shyamalan being arrogant or passionate is something that can be debated. I think he's really arrogant and you don't but as I said to Shinigami earlier I was originally trying to point out that what he did in LITW can appear to be egotistical to people.

What I've seen based on your responses is bizarre to me. It appears to me that you're saying this ego thing is just entirely made up in the minds of people who have a big hatred for M. Night Shyamalan. Like I said, I find that bizarre because it's not like so many people saw the movie, found it to be decent and without a shred of ego and then went 'hey I hate the director let me make up this arrogance thing so I can't give the movie what it deserves!' out of some personal bias.

So since I didn't get it across fully earlier, I'll just ask this flat out. Even though you do not find LITW to have any sense of M. Night Shyamalan having an ego, do you find it understandable why other people do see it?

[LordSimen]

Listen, I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon Lordsimen, but the fact that people are giving their side of the story and your acting that it isn't a worth a damn is the reason certain people are getting frustrated with you, as well as you saying that their logic makes no sense as well. Some people got a little extreme, but others have given valid viewpoints on how they perceive M. Night's work.

Certain critics probably dismissed M. Night's movies because they didn't like the flick itself, and their mind set also saw ways in which M. Night was acting like he was the best filmmaker on the planet, hence them revolving around on certain aspects such as the M Night's character as the savior writer. You may see nothing wrong about it, but other people do.

Do you have any links on these reviews that justify reviewer's resentment on Shamalyan for his previous films?

http://www.nycfilmcritic.com/display_film.php?id=214

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060720/REVIEWS/60720002/1023

http://mark-reviews-movies.tripod.com/reviews/L/ladyinthewater.htm

I don't feel like going through every single review on Rotten Tomatoes again just and waste my time so I'll just post the first three I found as examples.

[LordSimen]

So since I didn't get it across fully earlier, I'll just ask this flat out. Even though you do not find LITW to have any sense of M. Night Shyamalan having an ego, do you find it understandable why other people do see it?

No. I don't understand why.

[therealjohng]

Jesus fucking Christ, I loved Lady in the Water and even I thought it was jackass egotistical move on Night's part to write that role for himself.


This thread is full of as much win as it is fail. Holy fuck.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Alright, having read those reviews, i can definitely see how some reviewers can watch this flick and roll their eyes at those scenes (Shamaylans characters deemed the savior and the movie critic). I mean, a movie reviewer comes in to see this flick after not enjoying The Village, which to my understanding (im not 100%) was panned by the critics, and he coems into this movie to see the arogant movie critic march around with a high hat and eventually killed. I think that movie reviewer would either find that humorous, or just fucking stupid. Most of the reviewers found it in the latter, including after seeing Shamalayns character being deemed the writer savior, who IS the director of the film ironically.

it could also be the fact that his characters in his other movies just came and went, while his character in this movie was there and deemed an amazing storyteller. Yes, it could be "for his children", but other people have different outlooks on it. I mean, he couldve got a different actor and said in the commentary "this character was a representation of me, for my children."

However, they didn't just station on those fact throughout their whole review, they explain that the story itself wasn't that great and the execution and actors weren't great either, which i agree with. Hell, i had to keep flipping the channel because i just couldn't get into it.

[someguy]

No. I don't understand why.

When I typed up my reply I missed the whole spat between you and that other guy. Even though he was pretty damn aggressive about it (I'm trying to not do that now since it really gets us nowhere and just makes people more defensive) he brought up something I would like to say too.

They don't make a lick of sense. He's arrogant because he put himself in a film based on a bed time story he told his kids, a movie he also made for his kids as well as himself? That makes him arrogant? Sorry. It doesn't make any sense what so ever.

You're saying here that the reason why people call him arrogant is because he cast himself in his own movie. That's not true, all of the reviews I have read that address the issue aren't calling him arrogant for having a role. They're calling him arrogant because of what his role is. When Quentin Tarantino did Death Proof no one called him arrogant because he cast himself as the bartender (as you know he was called arrogant for a lot of other stuff). I didn't find it arrogant at all. Now, if the bartender was someone who was the only person who could defeat Stuntman Mike and go on to save humanity while banging all of the girls I would find that to be pretty egotistical on his part. You see the difference? A better example would be M. Night himself. No one called him arrogant or egotistical for his roles in his other movies because they were just little parts that he did. I wouldn't say his role in The Village means he's arrogant whatsoever. He was just a ranger guy and that was it.

You responded to that guy's point with this:

Mel Gibson was the savior to an entire group of people crying for freedom in Braveheart. Clint Eastwood cast himself as a girl's only hope for making something of herself in Million Dollar Baby, her only beacon of light. Are they arrogant for doing so, or are they just director's casting themselves in parts they believe they can play and also fits within their vision?

This is kind of similar to your 'it's just a role' thing. Mel Gibson is not anything like Wallace in real life. He's not a person who saved people to give them freedom. He's Mel Gibson, actor/director/writer/producer. Clint Eastwood is not a boxing coach. He's Clint Eastwood, actor and director. M. Night Shyamalan is a writer, actor and director. In LITW he played a writer whose material will end up saving humanity. M. Night's character is a writer and M. Night is a writer himself. That's why people found it to be a bit egotistical.

If Mel Gibson played a director who would make a movie that stopped global warming I would find that to be pretty egotistical. If Clint Eastwood made a movie where he played an actor whose performances helped cure a major disease I would find that egotistical. But they didn't do that. They played characters that were entirely different from their personal lives. M. Night Shyamalan played someone who had a similar aspect of his own life which is writing. So when a person who is a writer writes a role for themselves where the character's writing can save the human race it does come off as a little bit arrogant to some people.

I understand where you're coming from on the Eastwood/Gibson examples in the sense that directors are casting themselves as awesome people but leaving it at that is like looking at part of the picture and not the entire thing. Gibson and Eastwood played characters who weren't a single bit similar to their own personal lives and M. Night played one who did have a similarity to his personal life (being a writer) and then made that character's writing skills to be earth shattering. I think it's perfectly understandable for someone to look at that and find it self-reflective of Shyamalan.

[brodeurnumber1]

Mel Gibson was the savior to an entire group of people crying for freedom in Braveheart. Clint Eastwood cast himself as a girl's only hope for making something of herself in Million Dollar Baby, her only beacon of light. Are they arrogant for doing so, or are they just director's casting themselves in parts they believe they can play and also fits within their vision?

Granted this isn't in anyone else's point, but Gibson and Eastwood can actually you know ACT, something that M. Night can't do.

[LordSimen]

This is kind of similar to your 'it's just a role' thing. Mel Gibson is not anything like Wallace in real life. He's not a person who saved people to give them freedom. He's Mel Gibson, actor/director/writer/producer. Clint Eastwood is not a boxing coach. He's Clint Eastwood, actor and director. M. Night Shyamalan is a writer, actor and director. In LITW he played a writer whose material will end up saving humanity. M. Night's character is a writer and M. Night is a writer himself. That's why people found it to be a bit egotistical.


I don't see why it matters what they are in real life. Really, that doesn't matter. Only thing that matters is the vision for the movie and nothing more.

[Scarfather]

http://coreygilmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[DME]

http://coreygilmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

Yep.

[someguy]

I don't see why it matters what they are in real life. Really, that doesn't matter. Only thing that matters is the vision for the movie and nothing more.

I don't know if you're not picking up on the full context of the 'ego' argument purposely or not. It's like you read what I said about Gibson/Eastwood not being the same as their actors and you didn't bother reading my explanation because I did say why it matters.

Rather than repeat myself I'll ask you a few questions. What's in common with William Wallace the character and Mel Gibson, and how are those common traits portrayed? What's in common with Eastwood's character in MDB and Eastwood himself, and how are those common traits portrayed? Once you've answered those, ask yourself what's in common with M. Night's character in LITW and himself, then ask how those common traits are portrayed.

I'm actually trying to reasonably discuss this with you rather than do the opposite but I think that by taking my 3 paragraphs or so of my point (which I laid out very clearly), taking the first one and then just going 'nah doesn't matter' is pretty rude. When you do something like that it's no wonder why people get frustrated about it because it's like you're not even responding to my point when you just take one third and respond directly to that.

[LordSimen]

Rather than repeat myself I'll ask you a few questions. What's in common with William Wallace the character and Mel Gibson, and how are those common traits portrayed? What's in common with Eastwood's character in MDB and Eastwood himself, and how are those common traits portrayed? Once you've answered those, ask yourself what's in common with M. Night's character in LITW and himself, then ask how those common traits are portrayed.


'Eh. Superficial things that don't matter. Mel Gibson is a director and therefore a leader, and William Wallace is a man who must lead many onto the field of battle. In Mel Gibson's world, the field of battle is the field of making a film. William Wallace fights for freedom while Mel Gibson spent his whole life fighting for freedom of his pictures, and now actually has gained complete freedom by funding his own films.

I don't know much about Eastwood to honestly say what's the same about him and his character. As for M. Night, the only thing they really have in common is that they're both writers. Except M. Night writes movies, not books. Not exactly the same thing. I really don't see why it matters... Because it doesn't matter at all.

You stated earlier that in the case of M. Night, I'm not looking at the whole picture, but just parts of it. But that doesn't make any sense, because from what you're describing, YOU'RE the one only looking at part of the picture, and not the whole one. The WHOLE picture would include the fact that it's a bed time story he made for his kids. The WHOLE story would include that he's a director and it's his vision. The WHOLE story would include that he made the movie for his kids, and there's nothing wrong with the fact that in his kid's mind their daddy is an amazing story teller. He's the one who tells them stories by their bed every night that shocks and amaze them.

You just look at the surface, a writer casting himself as a writer who changes the world. You don't look at the underlying reason for him doing that, nor do you take into account the background of the story itself and why it came into creation in the first place. How can you sit there and tell ME that I'M not looking at the whole story, when you clearly seem to leaving out important details. The most important details, the ones which reveal his intentions and reasons for making the decisions he made.


I'm actually trying to reasonably discuss this with you rather than do the opposite but I think that by taking my 3 paragraphs or so of my point (which I laid out very clearly), taking the first one and then just going 'nah doesn't matter' is pretty rude. When you do something like that it's no wonder why people get frustrated about it because it's like you're not even responding to my point when you just take one third and respond directly to that.

You're implying that a director is the same person as his body of work. Which doesn't make sense. A director as a person is not the same thing as a director's work. A director's work is just that, his body of work. It doesn't matter who he is in real life, just because he is a writer doesn't mean he can't play a writer. I read your whole post and you really didn't explain why it matters that he's a writer, and the character is a writer. Who cares? It's just a fantasy film. It's not reality.

[NathanRomano]

http://coreygilmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

hahaha

[Cop No. 633]

http://www.thelword-downbelow.com/assets/images/news/news_lg_63.jpg

This thread is inconceivable!

[Jon Lyrik]

Oh, give me a fucking break, LS. Most of the free world hated Lady In The Water too, not just critics. And the average person does not give a shit about critics.

[Tweek]

What are doing to that horse? :eek:

[plantpage55]

Mel Gibson is a director and therefore a leader, and William Wallace is a man who must lead many onto the field of battle.

I wasn't going to post again, but this line was too hilarious to let go.

First LS couldn't grasp that Brad Bird was analyzing criticism in general with Ratatouille. LS said it wasn't the same because it was "food criticism."

But now Mel Gibson is doing the same thing as M. Night, because a director is a leader of sorts! Suddenly, LS can make thematic connections when they (but not really) seem to help his argument!

Cheers, everyone!

[JCPhoenix]

You stated earlier that in the case of M. Night, I'm not looking at the whole picture, but just parts of it. But that doesn't make any sense, because from what you're describing, YOU'RE the one only looking at part of the picture, and not the whole one. The WHOLE picture would include the fact that it's a bed time story he made for his kids. The WHOLE story would include that he's a director and it's his vision. The WHOLE story would include that he made the movie for his kids, and there's nothing wrong with the fact that in his kid's mind their daddy is an amazing story teller. He's the one who tells them stories by their bed every night that shocks and amaze them.

Yes, it's a bedtime story. Yes, he's the director and it's his vision. Does that mean the director is always perfect? If that's the case, what's the point of even talking about movies. WHY ARE WE ON THESE FORUMS THEN?! We might as well never criticize anything in a movie. I'm getting really tired of this "it's a bedtime story" being the defense for this movie. This is how that defense is constantly used:
"There's random CGI monkeys that appear out of nowhere, WTF" "Oh, it's just a bedtime story so it's okay. It's random cause it's a bedtime story."
"WTF is up with that incredibly stereotypical Korean family." "Oh, it's just a bedtime story he told his kids so it's okay. It's HIS vision."
"There's no logic in the film!" "Oh, it's just a bedtime story so you don't need logic."

Umm no, everything is judged as a movie first. The fact that it's a bedtime story does not immediately shield it from all criticism. You might as well never have seen the movie and proclaimed it a masterpiece then. See how the "it's a bedtime story" defense works in shutting down all criticism?

You're implying that a director is the same person as his body of work. Which doesn't make sense. A director as a person is not the same thing as a director's work. A director's work is just that, his body of work. It doesn't matter who he is in real life, just because he is a writer doesn't mean he can't play a writer.

What? No one's implying the director is the same person as his work (I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by that). But who the person is in real life does matter in this case. No one said he can't play a writer. Just like no one's said Clint Eastwood couldn't play the character he did in MDB. He can do what he wants. But that means we're free to criticize it as well. Once a director puts himself in a movie, he's fair game for criticism. When Clint Eastwood put himself in MDB? He was fair game for criticism - but he didn't play a composite character of himself that saved the world. So no one criticized him. M. Night played a character that parallels his own line of work - and that's fine. But when you turn that character into the fucking Messiah, you better believe that there will be people who think it's an arrogant thing.

And here's the first few lines of what egotism is according to wikipedia:
Egotism is the motivation to maintain and enhance favorable views of self. Egotism means placing oneself at the center of one's world with direct concern for no other.
It is closely related to narcissism, or "loving one's self," and the possible tendency to speak or write of oneself boastfully and at great length. Egotism may coexist with delusions of one's own importance, at the denial of others.

M. Night maintained an incredibly favorable view of himself and WRITES BOASTFULLY because the character he played in Lady in the Water who SAVES THE WORLD had direct correlations to M. Night in reality. There was nothing to separate M. Night's character in the movie from M. Night in real life. In the case of Clint Eastwood? There was a very clear separation, his character wasn't a director or an actor. Or a writer. Mel Gibson? Braveheart was based off a real character. Last I heard, Mel Gibson isn't a Scottish knight.

I read your whole post and you really didn't explain why it matters that he's a writer, and the character is a writer. Who cares? It's just a fantasy film. It's not reality.

"Who cares?" That's your best defense? Yeah, "who cares". Umm, we do. I assume you do by the fact that you POST ABOUT MOVIES ALL THE TIME ON THIS BOARD. "Who cares" is just as bad a defense as the above defense of "it's just a bedtime story so we can completely ignore any problems inside the film". "Who cares" is the same argument as "It's just a movie". It's a defense that people use time and time again to sidestep actual debate and ignore reasons. If you truly believe that then I seriously question why you post on these boards (which are all about debating films) to begin with.

I really find it ludicrous that you can say with a straight face that someguy is the one not looking at all the facts when you have been ignoring so many things in the past 4 pages. Does the fact that over two dozen schmoes in this thread have tried to debate this with you and almost none support your side not indicate anything to you? Like maybe it might be a good idea to go back, re-read those arguments carefully and then really think about the logic behind your arguments?

It's frustrating because people have been trying to debate this with you but the logic you're presenting us with simply doesn't make sense. No one's looking to change your opinion on whether or not Shyamalan is egotistical, but the fact that you can't even consider or understand the reasonings behind why OTHERS (like myself) found it egotistical and instead dismiss US as just harping on Shyamalan because we didn't like his previous films smacks of closemindedness. The fact that you're assigning reasons like that to dismiss our thoughts is what is frustrating people - you're acting like you know the way everyone thinks. And yes, by saying critics of the movie just didn't like his earlier movie, etc and that that's the reason why this movie gets so much flack, you're implying that the ENTIRE spectrum of negative criticism that's flung at this film is all void.

Otherwise, please explain what you think of us (the average schmoes) who think negatively of the film and think Shyamalan was egotistical. You reasoned that critics didn't like his last movies and decided to attack Shyamalan. Okay. Fine, I can't speak for any critics. But then you still haven't acknowledged the wave of negative criticism from those of us who aren't critics. Are we just trashing it because we can't "get [our] heads out of [our] asses to just watch the movie"?

There's a difference between agreeing and understanding. And what's aggravating to people is that you seem to lack any understanding of our point of view at all. Like, even remotely.

I disliked Gone Baby Gone but I can understand the reasons why people like the movie. Same with even Crash which is my most hated film of all time. I read the reviews of David Edelstein, for example - and I disagree with him more often than not. So why do I still read his reviews? Because he brings up interesting points and because even though I disagree with him, his reasoning for believing the way he does is always interesting. I can [i]understand his point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

That's what people are asking you for in this thread.

[Cop No. 633]

What are doing to that horse? :eek:

It's okay, it's dead. Nothing to worry about. :)

Also, I'd like to point out The Adventures of Baron Munchausen was a lot like a bedtime story, but that film was fucking brilliant. There is nothing wrong with a bed time story type of film. What's wrong is when the film sucks and LITW sucked for a lot of people. It's great that you could enjoy it Simen, but don't go around saying every one of us didn't like it simply because we're angry at Shyamalan.

Yes, some people came in with lowered expectations, but everybody does that. If I go see a film by Paul W.S. Anderson, I'm not going to think it's going to be amazing because I've seen his other films and I was never wowed by it. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't "taint" how you see the film because the film just might surprise you and overcome your preconceived notion. LITW simply proved to me that Shyamalan can craft a nice looking picture but the man is a terrible writer. I didn't like Signs or The Village mainly because of the script. Visually, both films were great and impressive, but the scripts were awful for me. Does that mean I'm merely being a bigot and picking on him because I don't like him? No, I only judge what I see on the screen.

And casting yourself in a role similar to yourself without any flaws and a "savior of the world" can be seen as egotistical. The only person who could craft something like that and get away with it is Woody Allen, but he gets away with it because he makes fun of himself and he gives his characters real flaws.

[Shockwave]

LADY IN THE WATER was one of the worst movies ive ever seen.

Im hoping this is a return to form. I loved Sixth Sense, Signs, and Unbreakable, but The Village and LITW both sucked. The writing was terrible and his overuse of CGI in LITW was horrible. Some things are better left unseen.

[plantpage55]

I applaud you, JCPhoenix! Well done, sir! But I have a feeling he won't "understand" your post, because it doesn't "make sense to him" and also "who cares, anyway?" XD

[mel1ssa]

http://coreygilmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

love it! now, we'll be really impressed if you can do something about this thread... :)

[AndrewDB]

It's his first R rated movie!

Wait a second while I find the proper emotion..

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs7/i/2005/253/f/f/Woo_by_Deadman2.gif.

Yeah, I think that sums it up.

[thedudeman69]

Andrew :

So? A good majority of directors do R rated movies to little or no fanfare compared to this.

People literally shit their pants when they see the R.

[LordSimen]

Yes, it's a bedtime story. Yes, he's the director and it's his vision. Does that mean the director is always perfect? If that's the case, what's the point of even talking about movies. WHY ARE WE ON THESE FORUMS THEN?! We might as well never criticize anything in a movie. I'm getting really tired of this "it's a bedtime story" being the defense for this movie. This is how that defense is constantly used:
"There's random CGI monkeys that appear out of nowhere, WTF" "Oh, it's just a bedtime story so it's okay. It's random cause it's a bedtime story."
"WTF is up with that incredibly stereotypical Korean family." "Oh, it's just a bedtime story he told his kids so it's okay. It's HIS vision."
"There's no logic in the film!" "Oh, it's just a bedtime story so you don't need logic."

'Eh. This paragraph is pointless. Why is it pointless? Because I never used "it's a bed time story" to defend the quality of the film. Try again.



What? No one's implying the director is the same person as his work (I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by that). But who the person is in real life does matter in this case. No one said he can't play a writer. Just like no one's said Clint Eastwood couldn't play the character he did in MDB. He can do what he wants. But that means we're free to criticize it as well. Once a director puts himself in a movie, he's fair game for criticism. When Clint Eastwood put himself in MDB? He was fair game for criticism - but he didn't play a composite character of himself that saved the world. So no one criticized him. M. Night played a character that parallels his own line of work - and that's fine. But when you turn that character into the fucking Messiah, you better believe that there will be people who think it's an arrogant thing.


No, who the person is in real life does not matter. Because it's a movie, not real life. What the director chooses to do in his film does not necessarily reflect who he is as a person in real life. Roman Polanski was a pedophile but I'll be damned if you find any pedophilic tendencies in Chinatown. You're implying that just because he's a writer, he cannot cast himself as a writer. Sorry. He's a different person from his body of work and therefore allowed to do whatever the fuck he wants regardless of whatever reason you come up for it in YOUR head. Because that's where this egoism you're thinking of was created. IN YOUR head. It's not actually there when you gather up the facts.

How does a book writer parallel a screen writer other than the fact they write? They write two different ways and in two different mediums. Sorry, if you're going to have them parallel, they need to parallel completely in order for your argument to work. And even then, it doesn't matter.



And here's the first few lines of what egotism is according to wikipedia:
Egotism is the motivation to maintain and enhance favorable views of self. Egotism means placing oneself at the center of one's world with direct concern for no other.
It is closely related to narcissism, or "loving one's self," and the possible tendency to speak or write of oneself boastfully and at great length. Egotism may coexist with delusions of one's own importance, at the denial of others.


You are ignoring the true motivation and all the facts that link to his actual motivation in order to create your false motivation inside your own head. It doesn't matter whether or not he's a writer in real life because THAT fact does not lead to his motivation. What does lead to his motivation is how the story came to be, why he chose to cast himself in the part and who the story was made for. Because all those facts lead to intent, not the intent you created in your little head.



M. Night maintained an incredibly favorable view of himself and WRITES BOASTFULLY because the character he played in Lady in the Water who SAVES THE WORLD had direct correlations to M. Night in reality. There was nothing to separate M. Night's character in the movie from M. Night in real life. In the case of Clint Eastwood? There was a very clear separation, his character wasn't a director or an actor. Or a writer. Mel Gibson? Braveheart was based off a real character. Last I heard, Mel Gibson isn't a Scottish knight.


He maintained a favorable view of A CHARACTER in his STORY. The fact that you can't separate fantasy from reality is truly astounding. Your arguments DON'T MATTER. Because the character in the story was not named M. NIGHT SHAYAMALAN. He wasn't the same guy.



"Who cares?" That's your best defense? Yeah, "who cares". Umm, we do. I assume you do by the fact that you POST ABOUT MOVIES ALL THE TIME ON THIS BOARD. "Who cares" is just as bad a defense as the above defense of "it's just a bedtime story so we can completely ignore any problems inside the film". "Who cares" is the same argument as "It's just a movie". It's a defense that people use time and time again to sidestep actual debate and ignore reasons. If you truly believe that then I seriously question why you post on these boards (which are all about debating films) to begin with.


Your best defense is ignoring all the important facts and only looking at the situation at the surface without looking at any subtext or actual reasoning. You HAVE No defense. Try harder.



I really find it ludicrous that you can say with a straight face that someguy is the one not looking at all the facts when you have been ignoring so many things in the past 4 pages. Does the fact that over two dozen schmoes in this thread have tried to debate this with you and almost none support your side not indicate anything to you? Like maybe it might be a good idea to go back, re-read those arguments carefully and then really think about the logic behind your arguments?


He isn't looking at the facts. He looks at one situation completely from the surface. He sees "Writer casts himself as writer who saves the world" and draws a single conclusion from that. A conclusion that only leads to why HE, Someguy, would make that choice. Not why M. Night would make the choice. He didn't look into M. Night Shayamalan's history with the story, nor why the story was made, nor what connection the story has to M. Night Shayamalan's personal life nor who the story was made for. He FAILED to look into the facts and instead chose to make a decision solely upon the SURFACE. Much like YOU'RE DOING right now.




It's frustrating because people have been trying to debate this with you but the logic you're presenting us with simply doesn't make sense. No one's looking to change your opinion on whether or not Shyamalan is egotistical, but the fact that you can't even consider or understand the reasonings behind why OTHERS (like myself) found it egotistical and instead dismiss US as just harping on Shyamalan because we didn't like his previous films smacks of closemindedness. The fact that you're assigning reasons like that to dismiss our thoughts is what is frustrating people - you're acting like you know the way everyone thinks. And yes, by saying critics of the movie just didn't like his earlier movie, etc and that that's the reason why this movie gets so much flack, you're implying that the ENTIRE spectrum [including us average schmoes] of negative criticism that's flung at this film is all void.


You're the ones who aren't making any sense, my friend. You're the ones who are frustrating me right now with your completely nonsensical arguments and lack of anything to back them up other than "HE'S ARROGANT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE HIM." Sorry. That's created in your head.


There's a difference between agreeing and understanding. And what's aggravating to people is that you seem to lack any understanding of our point of view at all. Like, even remotely.


Excellent. Right there you just clearly described how you and Someguy sound right now.

[The Postmaster General]

This is the first time I've seen anyone say a reason OTHER than M. Night's role. I remember whent he movie came out the entire fucking thread on the movie devolved into people arguing over M. Night's role. Sorry, but a vast majority of the freakin people who bash the movie and didn't like it tend to mention those two things first.



That's simply not true. There was a discussion about it, but no arguing. While there were FEWER people bringing up those two things, MOST did not. Most of the thread was actually people anticipating its release and wondering how it was going to do --- that went on for like 4 of the 6 pages...

From the thread you speak of... (http://joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102579)

And I'm not leaving anything out, even the couple of examples that back up your claims...

The ending makes everything that happens in the film meaningless, think Dallas.

Berardinelli's is up as well. He actually liked The Village, but he gave LITW 1.5 stars.


Overall Review: *** 1/2 stars out of 4


I just got back from it and I enjoyed it. Only the second Shyamalan film that I liked.

Got back from it and its absolutely amazing.
9/10

***SPOILERS***

This movie was boring from start to finish. It was a jumbled mess of "who is the guild, who is the guardian, who is the translator??"
The film made up its own rules in trying to explain what was going on, which nothing much happened. It failed to capture my attention or anyone else's that watched this with me.
I hated how it just ended too, without explaining anything or leaving us with anything to think about at the end - Eagle grabs girl, roll credits......

M. Night's worst movie ever, I am not a fan of "The Village," but this makes that look like "Citizen Kane."

Well I went to see this newest offering from M. Night Shymalan, and didn't expect much from it... The trailers made it look interesting I thought, and so I figured I'd give it a chance... And boy am I glad I did!

Something very original and intriguing/fantastical, I HIGHLY recommend checking this one, I fuckin loved it! :)

Here's the beastiary: Bryce Dallas is the naked, pale, redheaded, cracked out looking 'narf' named Story, yes, you read that right, wolves made of grass named 'scrunts', rightfully so, and wood monkeys that serve no purpose to the story.

There's a pompous movie critic who gets killed by the scrunts, an annoying Asian lady who just happens to know the convoluted tale that serves the basis to this one, and the most depressing of all, a superintendant named Cleveland Heep.

There is a point in this film, and you SEE it, where Paul Giamatti just stops caring, the talk after in the lobby was primarily on how he could ever agree to this.

M. Night Shyamalan once again acts (on a level that has no succeeded Quentin Tarantino in awefullness), and in the most self-serving role of them all I'll let you see for yourself.

I'd like to continue, but it would just turn into hysterical laughter.

But I do not take one credit from M. Night Shyamalan, this film does what a bedtime story is meant to do, put you to sleep.

46/100

A fun side game: count the people who get up to leave in the film's runtime, I counted 7.

Lady in the Water - 7/10


What the heck kind of name is Cleveland anyway? Seriously, who names their kid after a city?

Lady in the Water, M Night Shyamalan's latest effort, is silly and self indulgent and cheesy and occasionally hokey. But it's also absorbing, involving, clever, funny and just all around a good time.

Lady in the Water- 7/10


I liked the film very much, and I think Paul Giamatti did a wonderful job.

I'll elaborate later, perhaps, but for now that's all. I just hope the film cleans up at the box office this weekend.

It could be the “arrogance” and “ego” that Shyamalan possess, that everyone has been discussing ad nauseam over the past few weeks. Or it could simply just be a case of a film, for whatever reason, not working, falling apart, not equaling the sum of its parts.

*/****

I can understand why people would hate this film. The mythology is way too convoluted, the stutter way way too pronounced, and the characters were a bit one note although it made sense to me considering that the film was more about a group of people coming together rather than just one indivduals story.

On the other hand I really liked the movie. /QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MadsenOMC;2166940]SPOILERS!!!!!

I think there is a good movie in here somewhere, but Shyamalan shoots himself in the foot a few too many times for Lady in the Water to be truly successful and satisfying. It is an interesting mess though, and I did like it more than The Village.

Unfortunately, I think it unravels in the second half and it never meshes as a whole. For one thing it's just way too convoluted. Cleveland figures out everyone's specific role, only to learn that he is wrong, and then rediscovers the roles. This drags out and seems pointless save for padding the running time. It also seems like only 10 or 15 people live in the apartment complex, until the party. Then the place seems huge. Not a huge issue or flaw, but something I noticed.

I found myself not caring much about Story's fate. We learn next to nothing about her and Howard's performance leaves much to be desired. I had nothing invested in her and it was frustrating to not care more about whether or not she is saved.

6/10

There is no logic to the movie whatsoever...people just make things up as they go along. Okay, yeah, wow, it's like a bedtime story...I don't give a fuck. I don't care if it's passed off as a "bedtime story", it still has to have some coherence to it, which it sadly doesn't.


8/10


THE BAD:

-Like SO many fantasy and genre films, LADY IN THE WATER makes the twin errors of making rules for itself that are too complex and then not doing enough to explain them to the audience. God I feel like I'm repeating myself on this thing, in fact, I AM repeating myself, because for some reason too many writers and directors just don't get that what makes perfect sense in their own imagination isn't going to flow as naturally for an audience. Either make things simple or else invest the time to make sure we understand, but stop half-assing it!

-Too many of the characters in this movie are one-dimensional or transparent plot devices, and the plot itself is a bit too connect-the-dots. Then again, it IS supposed to be a fairy tale and that's a type of story that's nothing if not contrived, but even so, it was hard to care about these folks on account of we simply weren't given a reason.

-I don't pay much attention to stories about Shymalan's ego and such. Frankly, I could give two piles of mule shit what a director thinks about himself, the important thing is the movies. Everything else is just gossip and I don't have time for it. That said, casting yourself as "The Chosen One" in your movie IS a bit much. He would have been better off going with a small role ala SIGNS, or even better, like his more Hitchcockian cameo in THE VILLAGE.

Lady in the Water 7.5/10

7/10


I think it was sort of like watching The Neverending Story. When I could suspend my disbelief and get into the mysticism of the piece, I really enjoyed the trip.

I think Paul Giamatti is just fantastic. He is the #1 reason this movie is good. The skill of the cinematography and the fluidity of the writing back him up, but man is he good.

Caught this movie last night and, yeah, BORING!!! Total yawn fest!!! If you like Shyamalan or Giamatti, check it out. Otherwise save your money!!

It is exactly what it proclaims itself to be, a real-life adaption of a bedtime story. The take home messages are weak, as well as the character developement. It had a certain quality of strangeness that all Shyamalan films share, which is what I like about his work the most. Other than that, yawn, there's not much else to say about it. !

Lady in the water while it is Shyamalan's best work it is certainly not his worst either. I personally thought this was an improvement over The Village.

7/10

Just got back from seeing it:

Have to say I went in with completely low expectations, and I recieved exactly what I thought I was going to expect. This movie is one of the most extravagent exercises in self indulgence I have ever seen.



7.5/10

7.5/10

Lady in the Water - 4/10 or **/***** stars

Lady in the Water, the latest directorial feature from M. Night Shyamalan, seems to play out like his version of E.T., with a few differences, such as a sea nymph instead of an alien, adults instead of children trying to get the titular character back home, and a grassy-haired wolf instead of humans standing in their way. And it's nowhere near as good. This is a convoluted, emotionally hollow mess of a film which proves that Shyamalan, despite how gifted he may be, is deteriorating as a filmmaker.




What's most interesting is that most reviews on the thread you spoke of were positive in nature. What's most contrary to what you are claiming is that even the positive reviews complained of, or made mention of M. Night's self-indugence.

It's also worth noting that you seem to be forcing this expectation onto reviewers that states they are unable to comment on their feelings about the filmmaker, and I think that's really unfair. ESPECIALLY since most of the comments about M. Night's ego applied to both negative AND positive reviews...

So even though people that both hated and loved LITW have commented on self-indulgence, or ego, you insist that this is the sole factor in people not liking the movie, despite a plethora of reasons that have been given.

[LordSimen]

That's simply not true. There was a discussion about it, but no arguing. While there were FEWER people bringing up those two things, MOST did not. Most of the thread was actually people anticipating its release and wondering how it was going to do --- that went on for like 4 of the 6 pages...

What's most interesting is that most reviews on the thread you spoke of were positive in nature. What's most contrary to what you are claiming is that even the positive reviews complained of, or made mention of M. Night's self-indugence.

It's also worth noting that you seem to be forcing this expectation onto reviewers that states they are unable to comment on their feelings about the filmmaker, and I think that's really unfair. ESPECIALLY since most of the comments about M. Night's ego applied to both negative AND positive reviews...

So even though people that both hated and loved LITW have commented on self-indulgence, or ego, you insist that this is the sole factor in people not liking the movie, despite a plethora of reasons that have been given.

'Eh. Seems that thread was a lot different from what I remember. All I remember is a bunch of people claiming that M. Night was the most egotistical film maker alive due to his casting decisions on the film. Hell, I even thought so too until actually looked into it and found out that wasn't the case at all.

Honestly I don't care who liked the film or what on this board, as I stated earlier, you guys can think what you want about it. I don't care. Right now all I care about is your false accusations of him being egotistical for a choice he made when the choice was made for everything but egotistical reasons.

[Cop No. 633]

That's it!

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x53/cosmicpuppet/GuntoHead.jpg

"Eh, seems like that thread wasn't like those quotes you went out of your way to put together Bubba. I don't care though. Using actual facts won't help you win any argument with me. How I remember and see things is exactly how they happened. I don't care about what anybody thinks. It's just me, me, me and my right hand that I care about. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find some lotion to stroke my ego... wait I mean, I don't have one. M. Night has no ego whatsoever and neither do I."

[The Postmaster General]

'Eh. Seems that thread was a lot different from what I remember. All I remember is a bunch of people claiming that M. Night was the most egotistical film maker alive due to his casting decisions on the film. Hell, I even thought so too until actually looked into it and found out that wasn't the case at all.

Honestly I don't care who liked the film or what on this board, as I stated earlier, you guys can think what you want about it. I don't care. Right now all I care about is your false accusations of him being egotistical for a choice he made when the choice was made for everything but egotistical reasons.


I didn't know tandem bikes could go backwards. Make sure M. Night does a little peddling too, because it's clear as day that you're doing all the work for him.

[LordSimen]

That's it!

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x53/cosmicpuppet/GuntoHead.jpg

"Eh, seems like that thread wasn't like those quotes you went out of your way to put together Bubba. I don't care though. Using actual facts won't help you win any argument with me. How I remember and see things is exactly how they happened. I don't care about what anybody thinks. It's just me, me, me and my right hand that I care about. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find some lotion to stroke my ego... wait I mean, I don't have one. M. Night has no ego whatsoever and neither do I."

Your inability to notice the fact I conceded on that thread makes this entire post a pointless attack against me that isn't true. Nice.

I didn't know tandem bikes could go backwards. Make sure M. Night does a little peddling too, because it's clear as day that you're doing all the work for him.

:confused: I have no idea what you just said.

[The Postmaster General]

What a twist!

[Tweek]

Have I contributed to this thread other than "What're they doing to that horse?"

ah. Well, I enjoyed Lady in the Water the one time I've seen it. What Scarfather or someone posted about the annoying woman who knew the entire story was what I found really ridiculous. And the hair change at one part. lol


But after you watch this I'm sure you'll know what REAL self-indulgent filmmaking is:


http://www.jibjab.com/view/199683




:rolleyes:

[LordSimen]

You're making about as much sense as X was now, Bubba.

[The Postmaster General]

You're making about as much sense as X was now, Bubba.


Yeah, but it's all really meaningful to me, so you should hail it as genius!

[LordSimen]

:confused: Now you've officially lost me even more so than before.

[The Postmaster General]

It's all part of establishing mood and atmosphere. Just hang in there.

[Shinigami]

Sometimes these types of jokes can become another form of internet smackdown, lordsimen. But it's the type that smacks harder and harder the more confused you seem, so for your benefit, you should probably stop gaping whenever x-nightcrawler or bubbastrangelove does one. ;)
Anyways, I think the weirdest thing so far in this thread (other than the last four pages), is that even after lordsimen concedes to every point but m. night's egotism -which is perfectly legit to be against, again- everybody is still making fun of him, directly or indirectly. He just said you guys were good to go on every other point.
And then he actually repeated himself a few posts up, in case anyone didn't catch it the first time around.
Either I'm as dense as he apparently is, or some of you guys might be missing the finer details of lordsimen's posts. Otherwise it just looks like there is some kind of angry schmoe ratpick that follows this guy around until he gives them his lunch money. While that's a joke on my part, he did just concede most every point except the ego. Which is...still totally reasonable. So you guys might be getting worked up over nothing if you keep pulling out your hair.

But I'm getting off point. Again. On topic, has anyone mentioned yet that people probably wouldn't have any problem with m night's "ego", or his attacks on critics, if they had liked the movie? Satirizing and condemning critics has been done before, with one example already listed. But directors and authors have also been putting themselves into movies and books for eons, sometimes by name, as an experimental tool. Even more to the point, there are both directors and actors that are known to be completely egotistical, yet film fans continue to appreciate them. So it still just comes down to the simple opinion that a lot of folks hated the flick.
The Happening is definitely one of his very last chances to appease most people, as they did not appreciate The Village or Lady in the Water by a pretty good margin.

[LordSimen]

Sometimes these types of jokes can become another form of internet smackdown, lordsimen. But it's the type that smacks harder and harder the more confused you seem, so for your benefit, you should probably stop gaping whenever x-nightcrawler or bubbastrangelove does one. ;)
Anyways, I think the weirdest thing so far in this thread (other than the last four pages), is that even after lordsimen concedes to every point but m. night's egotism -which is perfectly legit to be against, again- everybody is still making fun of him, directly or indirectly. He just said you guys were good to go on every other point.
And then he actually repeated himself a few posts up, in case anyone didn't catch it the first time around.
Either I'm as dense as he apparently is, or some of you guys might be missing the finer details of lordsimen's posts. Otherwise it just looks like there is some kind of angry schmoe ratpick that follows this guy around until he gives them his lunch money. While that's a joke on my part, he did just concede most every point except the ego. Which is...still totally reasonable. So you guys might be getting worked up over nothing if you keep pulling out your hair.

Thank you Shinigami. I think I just have difficulty explaining things and that's why it leads to these kinds of confusions. And I guess I'll just take your word on the Bubba and X internet smackdown thing. I don't quite understand it, but, whatever I suppose.


The Happening is definitely one of his very last chances to appease most people, as they did not appreciate The Village or Lady in the Water by a pretty good margin.

I'm hoping this film has the opposite effect of the Village. What I mean by that is, the Village had excellent marketing, marketing that got you excited to see the film and wondering what was going to happen... Only to be sorely disapointed when you actually watched the film to find out that the film wasn't that great.

Hopefully the Happening, which most of us seem to agree has had terrible marketing, will turn out to be good in spite of that and have the reverse effect the Village had.

[AndrewDB]

Andrew :

So? A good majority of directors do R rated movies to little or no fanfare compared to this.

People literally shit their pants when they see the R.

I put up the wrong emoticon, this is the one I was looking for: http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/s/sarcasticclap.gif.


There's a reason a good majority of directors don't get fanfair..

It's because no one really gives a shit about an R rating.. it's like "The movie you want to see is R..so?"

How would you feel if say.... Quentin Tarantino made a G rated movie and thrust it in your face like Shamalayn is doing with this?

It just makes the whole movie feel overly pretentious and full of it's self.

[Tweek]

I put up the wrong emoticon, this is the one I was looking for: http://e.deviantart.com/emoticons/s/sarcasticclap.gif.


There's a reason a good majority of directors don't get fanfair..

It's because no one really gives a shit about an R rating.. it's like "The movie you want to see is R..so?"

How would you feel if say.... Quentin Tarantino made a G rated movie and thrust it in your face like Shamalayn is doing with this?

It just makes the whole movie feel overly pretentious and full of it's self.

I think people DO care about ratings to the extent of "Man, that would've been great if it were bloodier." Or "That could've used more nudity." People aren't going to say "That should've been rated R for _____ and _______"

LOL I hope that made sense.

[AndrewDB]

I think people DO care about ratings to the extent of "Man, that would've been great if it were bloodier." Or "That could've used more nudity." People aren't going to say "That should've been rated R for _____ and _______"



I suppose that's a good point, but still, thrusting it into peoples faces like "LOOK AT ME .. I'M R RATED!" is just silly... it's almost attention whorish.

"Look at me, I'm R rated so I have gore.. I have nudity... I have.. "

Unless you get to see Zooey Deschanel nude (which you don't), I'm in the crowd that says whopty shit.

So it's R rated, good for Shamalyan, he can make an R rated movie.. if you ask me ALL of his movies should of been R rated and to claim this one is his first one, is as I said, attention whorish and trite.

[Tweek]

I suppose that's a good point, but still, thrusting it into peoples faces like "LOOK AT ME .. I'M R RATED!" is just silly... it's almost attention whorish.

"Look at me, I'm R rated so I have gore.. I have nudity... I have.. "

Unless you get to see Zooey Deschanel nude (which you don't), I'm in the crowd that says whopty shit.

So it's R rated, good for Shamalyan, he can make an R rated movie.. if you ask me ALL of his movies should of been R rated and to claim this one is his first one, is as I said, attention whorish and trite.

I do agree. But that's marketing fer ya. I remember people asking me if I snuck into The Sixth Sense because they thought it was Rated R. Ha.

And that's a shame about Ms. Deschanel lol

[Shockwave]

..doesnt the HULK come out on the same day as well?

That and the R rating arent going to help it very much.

Im actualy looking forward to this, even if its with alot of caution. I just have to wonder, with the SHIT MARKETING that has been done, the R rating, and The Hulk coming out on the very same day, just how much this will be able to make.

Does anyone know how much it cost to make?

[Lazy Boy]

Does anyone know how much it cost to make?

IMDB says 57 million...add some more due to marketing and that would probably make the whole production closer to 70 million.

[Shockwave]

IMDB says 57 million...add some more due to marketing and that would probably make the whole production closer to 70 million.

Cheaper then i thought. I hope that helps it.

[someguy]

'Eh. Seems that thread was a lot different from what I remember. All I remember is a bunch of people claiming that M. Night was the most egotistical film maker alive due to his casting decisions on the film. Hell, I even thought so too until actually looked into it and found out that wasn't the case at all.

Honestly I don't care who liked the film or what on this board, as I stated earlier, you guys can think what you want about it. I don't care. Right now all I care about is your false accusations of him being egotistical for a choice he made when the choice was made for everything but egotistical reasons.

So after Bubba gets all of that evidence for you, rather than being a reasonable person who says 'Oh I was wrong about what I said on that aspect, I guess that I've just seen it ever since in different threads and on reviews or something like that' you just go 'That's not how I remember it' even though the facts have clearly been laid in front of you showing that it is not how you remember it at all.

Do you have any relation to a nurse in Massachusetts by any chance?

[Shinigami]

You're actually yelling at him because instead of saying "I was wrong", he said "I thought it said something different until I actually looked there and found that this wasn't the case". It's the same thing. It's not even sort-of the same thing, it's literally the exact same thing. Literally-exactly-positively-definitely. I appreciate what you said before someguy, so I don't mean to get on your cae about this.
But I just can't even pretend to understand it anymore. I've seen this happen on at least three threads lately, all with lordsimen, and mostly all with this same ratpack of schmoes that are obviously friendly and obviously united in their internet pwnage contest. A lot of times it's funny to read, as you guys are plenty clever with the ways you underhandedly tease him (I'm not being underhanded here myself, because everybody in this forum jokes around with each other, myself included, so there's nothing at all wrong with it)...it's just all exhausting now. You don't even have a point of reference anymore, for one. Lordsimen conceded to the earlier debate because he misremembered the thread. Now he's probably just out for talking about passion v ego.
...which I've said before. And which he's said before. I could hire local cheerleaders to spell out the conclusion in song and dance, but I'm a little short of cash right now, so this will have to do. ;)
The fued is between you guys, and sorry for butting in. It's just way past the point of coherence anymore.

[someguy]

Shinigami you're pretty much 100% incorrect on what you're saying. This is like when Simen did that rant about critics having a personal bias against horror films and then a bunch of people read the thread and found Simen's arguments so jaw droppingly bad that people had to reply which Simen interpreted as Quigles' (the person who first started debating with him in the thread) little group of friends ganging up on him. It wasn't true at all, I never even talked to Quigles before that thread.

This is similar to the politics forum and Lynn7. She would come in and make terrible arguments. A lot of us disagreed with her viewpoints (she is/was a very conservative and religious person) and there was the image of everyone ganging up on her. The problem with her was not what she believed in though it was how she discussed. It was nearly impossible to get through to her in any way, there would be some sort of excuse or illogical explanation from her to remain firm in her beliefs. I remember one time there was a discussion about slavery and she said something which was actually proven wrong through various sources and she responded along the lines of 'well that's what I believe so I still think it's right.'

To me LS is being kind of similar. He can have his opinions. If he thinks Shyamalan is passionate and not with an ego that's perfectly fine. That's an issue of opinion. But I'm not trying to argue that. JCPhoenix summed up perfectly why we all have a huge problem with what LS is saying.

There's a difference between agreeing and understanding. And what's aggravating to people is that you seem to lack any understanding of our point of view at all. Like, even remotely.

This is why it's so frustrating to us because Simen just doesn't understand how people can sense some arrogance from what the director did. It's like if he just says 'I like LITW, I think it's a good movie and while I understand people can see M. Night's role as a reflection of his ego in my opinion I just think that M. Night Shyamalan is more passionate than arrogant' I think everyone here would be fine with that. I would be fine with that. But instead of saying something along those lines he says 'I like LITW, I think it's a good movie but I just don't see how anyone can infer some sort of ego from the movie. Clearly these people are just personally against M. Night and made this up to just make more reasons to hate a movie that is clearly good.'

That doesn't make sense to me. I like the movie Pulse (the original version not the crappy Kristen Bell remake), but I have read reviews blasting the movie for being boring and really confusing. When I read those I think 'yeah, the movie has a slow pace and doesn't really clarify what is going on but in my opinion I never was bored of the movie because it kept things tense and the vague explanations worked for me.' What I don't say is 'I don't think this movie is slow or confusing at all. Everyone who thinks otherwise clearly has a dislike for the influx of Asian horror films and created this excuse to find reasons to bash a good movie for personal reasons.' Like JC said, it's not about getting him to agree with us. It's about getting him to at least understand that there is some basis for the ego complaint and that it wasn't pulled out of thin air to just rag on Shyamalan.

Your image of this schmoe 'ratpack' is entirely wrong. Simen is a frequent poster. People read the forums, see his discussions and then come in to participate or just get in complete shock by things like his attempt to compare William Wallace's life to Mel Gibson's life. If you seriously think that a whole group of us get together and discuss over ways to 'pwn' Simen you're being ridiculous. His arguments are entertaining to read for some and rather than waste time and just cause unnecessary frustration people poke fun at him. Bubba is one of the better people on here for dicussions and even he decided to not even bother wasting time over this. I decided to reasonably discuss this with him and (unsurprisingly) it went nowhere.

I didn't get a sense of Simen 'conceding' the argument and focusing on the ego/passion thing. All I saw was him going 'eh i remembered it wrong' and then leaving it at that. I know he's said that he thinks Shyamalan isn't arrogant. He can have that opinion, I'll agree to disagree. It seems that you and him aren't getting that what I and others like JCPhoenix have been trying to discuss about this whole time is why he doesn't understand that people didn't just make up this ego complaint.

And once again, you're completely wrong on your rat pack beliefs. I don't talk to JC, Scarfather, X, Andrew, Bubba, etc. outside of these boards. Hell I don't really talk to them much on the boards. I don't go searching for Simen posts either, I just read the forums and tend to come upon what he says because he posts frequently. So please, don't assume that everyone here is part of some little group who go out and attack Simen for kicks. We're all different members on here who just agree with each other about LordSimen.

[FLAME_ON]

Has anyone seen the episode of The X-Files with Kathy Griffin; called Fight Club? Where she has a twin sister and, I think, if they become aware of the other twin or if they get close to each other chaos will just erupt?
Anyways, I just love it when these arguments pop up... it's like if we see LordSimen and someguy in the same thread we're guaranteed a chaotic show... With the addition of cameos made by people LordSimen has gotten in arguments with in the past, who stop by with a one-liner.
Or another personification I make with LordSimen and somguy is Peter and the Giant Chicken from Family Guy.

[Shinigami]

I think Lynn7 is a good example to use, someguy. I was reading joblo.com during that fiasco. I might have registered some months ago, but I have been visiting joblo for awhile - including the politics forum. Although I don't really know a lot of usernames, I do remember a big forum "problem" with the local religious christian extremist. I think that's your Lynn7. But sometimes I felt people weren't giving her the credit she deserved.
Anyways, again I appreciate the clarification about this someguy, and I've had a few private messages from some helpful schmoes that explained the situation a little (I whined about the treatment of Lordsimen on a music thread awhile back too, I think). All the same... there is a friendly group of you that repeats these threads with him. I'm not talking about some anti-lordsimen conspiracy bs or anything. I'm sure all of you individually got completely frustrated with the guy somewhere down the line, but there is still a group that's getting into the habit of coming in whenever another schmoe has problems with lordsimen, making underhanded insults, posting pictures of dead horses or other funny images with cats n' stuff. All of these are made at the expense of lordsimen being stupid/dense/hopeless. This isn't like a vicious attack here, of course, it just exhausted me in this particular thread, and probably because I was having fun reading it until it just siderailed and flew off a cliff.
I really don't mean to get into the habit of 'patrolling' around lordsimen here, waggling my finger at people. I also don't want to get on your case whenever you have an argument/debate with him, someguy, or anyone else. But I'm sure you schmoes know what you're doing all the same. It's bad enough that I'm turning this thread into "discuss Lordsimen hour with deputy asshole shinigami" (sorry), but the whole production just felt tiring this time. Maybe because some newcomer called plantpage55 got so excited that everyone was insulting the same guy, he way' overdid things on the aggression scale. But, even with my complaints, I'm not trying to pigeonhole anyone to start grudges or anything of that sort. This thread just got' tiring to read. I'm sure you guys have your reasons. As for me, I've come across three threads like this in relatively short time, so who knows. Either way, I agree with some of lordsimen's points, and hopefully nobody will find me dense, there could be a discussion in here. Unfortunately I'm spending my joblo free time derailing the already-derailed thread. :D

[The Postmaster General]

I think you are missing something pretty significant, Shinigami. Most specifically that I took umbrage with Simen taking umbrage with people taking umbrage with M. Night's ego and rating his movies unfairly.

Then when I pretty well show him that this isn't the case, he back paddled on everything he's said over the course of a couple of pages to just say that none of it actually mattered to him, because he's sick of the exact same thing that I just told him he had no reason to be sick of.

Instead of making this about my personality, and X;'s personality, and all of these people who apparently have shown up on a virtual cork board with our avatars pinned on, and lines drawn connecting us all together with LordSimen somehow in the middle... Can we just talk about what's so wrong with taking jabs at M. Night's ego. He's taken jabs at his own ego in shows like Entourage. That's a question that I've asked which has been overlooked in lieu of wallowing in the idea that Simen's points are being missed.

My last responses to LordSimen were in no way jabs, but my attempt to convey thoughts in a lighter mood -

#158 - I think he is backpedaling for the sake of riding M. Night's cock and if M. Night put as much vigor into his work as LordSimen, he might make better movies. (Oddly a praise of Simen...)

#160 - He gets M. Night movies but not my jokes. That's a twist to me.

#163 - I think he is attached to M. Night's intentions more than his results. I'd appreciate the same benefits applied to my posts.

#165 - At the moment I'm more intent on trying to lighten the mood than rationalizing with you.


Why did I take it all so comically? Well, I took it seriously earlier and none of my points were addressed.

I have no issue with LordSimen and in fact, despite paranoid fantasies, I think the two of us have agreed in other threads, even one that had something to do with Michael Bay or something where we ended up agreeing and high-fiving. I'm not sure, because I'm apparently one of the few not keeping tabs.

Why anyone would want to stir shit, I don't know because we all make pretty productive posts that pertain the conversation. I've said nothing off-topic, nor out of flow with the conversation to deserve any sort of pigeon holing as some sort of net bully.





Lord Simen and back on topic -

People see both PT Anderson and M. Night as being ego-driven directors. People like M. Night because they like him, they like PT because they like him, they don't like M. Night because they don't like him, and they don't like PT because they don't like him.

Ego has nothing to do with anything to do with people's views on him. I know you say suddenly you don't care what people think -- which IMO is odd state to be in on a movie message board.

Anyway, that's my only point - what's your problem with people railing his ego? It's pretty well established that it has no baring on his shitty reviews. So what then?
M. Night is egotistical, and so is PT Anderson. People like PT's films because they like them, they like M. Night's because they like them

[Shinigami]

Look guys. I'm being colorful with 'ratpacks' and 'lunch money'. I'm only really raising point with the half of this thread that's covered in posts reiterating "lordsimen=dumbass" in a'many clever ways, and nothing else. Why is everyone playing "aw shucks shinigami, what are you talking about"? I can barely keep track of you guys, and even I noticed this stuff repeating over and over. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's stupid, and in this thread it just got' tiring to read. If you haven't the foggiest idea what I'm prattling on about, you also haven't read the thread all the way through. I don't want to track down the last two recent threads where this situation repeated at length, because for the second time, it's not exactly a big deal. Nothing anyone has said -even plantpage55- is any kind of vicious attack. Nobody's in trouble. Schmoes do this stuff all the time in threads. Everyone jokes around with each other, and that's cool.
This particular example just tired me out enough to post about it more than a few times. All the same, I do appreciate the clarification someguy gave, and you too, bubbastrangelove.

Anyway, that's my only point - what's your problem with people railing his ego? It's pretty well established that it has no baring on his shitty reviews. So what then?
M. Night is egotistical, and so is PT Anderson. People like PT's films because they like them, they like M. Night's because they like them

Wondering if any one topic is qualified for discussion on an internet messageboard is like trying to find people-food your dog won't eat. I think my last three posts have proved that point pretty well. :D I dunno about lordsimen, but I'm happy to read/discuss m. night's ego for the simple reason that people here are bringing it up to make fun of him for it. I've said before that it shouldn't have any bearing on whether people embrace his films or not, but still, dogs eat anything people eat, even if it's in the garbage.
Unless you have one of those snooty Paris Hilton dogs.

[Cop No. 633]

All I will say Shinigami is that you can't take somebody serious when they present an opinion as fact unless you provide evidence to backup their findings. Gordon posted clips from the book about Night to show how Night could be egotistical (the book was mainly about his time making LITW). Bubba went out of his way to provide reviews showing that a good chunk of movie fans liked it, but also acknowledged the film has egotistical tendencies. Hell even PlantPage showed that you could criticize a critic in a film without it coming off as arrogant (Ratatouille was a great children's film that pulled it off in spades). They've all shown why his last film could give people the intention that Night didn't have the clearest head while making it.

Simen brought up 3 reviews and that's supposed to be an indictment against all critics that they were all biased against Night before the film and that's the only reason it got bad reviews. 3 reviews doesn't prove anything. It shows that 3 people, not an entire community of critics, have a bias against Night's films.

That's like me saying all Mexicans are thieves because I got robbed once by somebody who was Mexican. That sort of logic isn't based on any kind of fact to back it up.

That's what frustrates people and causes them to post sarcastic comments and such because Simen will never take their opinion into account because it doesn't jive with his opinion. We've all had debates with people concerning movies, but there is at least a level of respect concerning how people can perceive and acknowledge the other person's concept or point of view. Simen has a very hard time doing that. He feels that it somehow would compromise his views if he did that even though it wouldn't at all. This has been going on for some time, hence why it's very easy for posters to go to sarcastic jabs because it's like a broken record at this point.

.................

Now back to the discussion at hand.... the marketing does suck for this film. I think the biggest disadvantage for Shyamalan was that he originally titled the film the Green Effect when he tried selling it and it completely gave away what the film was about. So seeing the trailers, you know exactly what's causing the harm and it comes off as really silly. Not to mention that scene he presented showcased some of the worst acting I've seen in a while and it was only ONE scene. I mean, you have a whole film to choose scenes from and the director chooses the one that shows the actors at their most vulnerable (in terms of their craft)? That's a big no-no in my book.

Like I said before, I think Night is a terrible writer. He has good ideas, but when it comes to writing people, he paints a very simple black and white portrait of people. I enjoyed the 6th Sense, but even Unbreakable had one-note characters except for Samuel L. Jackson's. Willis plays the same sad sack face in every scene. His son is always on the brink of tears even though he has no reason for it. Robin Wright Penn is wasted as an actress. Then he crafts some bad scenes between the father and son... if I found out my father was a superhero as a kid, would I cry? No, I'd be excited as hell. Why? Because that's what kids do when they hear awesome news like that. But no, Willis' characters lifts the weights and the kid is crying. It just felt fake to me. Not to mention that atrocious scene when the son has the gun. There are many cringe worthy moments in his movies for me. If I do have a bias, it's only from what I've seen on the screen. I couldn't careless what Night thought of himself... I could see how it could bother people, but since I feel his films are severely flawed, I can't help but to not take his work seriously anymore. Who knows, maybe one day he'll make a great film and I'll be flabbergasted.

[Scarfather]

If it's a matter of "Why do you just smack out one liners and post funny pictures", it's this: I have had disagreements with someguy, X-Nightcrawler, BubbaStrangelove, and MANY other schmoes here, some many, MANY times.

I have never, however, felt that we were ever two schmoes on towers opposite from each other over a black, bottomless pit, shouting:"Yuh huh! Nuh uh!" to one another. A discussion requires two or more sides that genuinely wish to not only submit their own opinion, but understand the other's as well, and are willing to compromise if need be. LordSimen has NEVER shown himself to be willing to have a discussion that doesn't end unequivocally with "Nah, I'm right."

Most specifically that I took umbrage with Simen taking umbrage with people taking umbrage with M. Night's ego and rating his movies unfairly.

UMBRAGE!

[Shinigami]

Yeah, I've seen enough of these threads to know that a lot of you used to give lordsimen a few good chances before things fell into beating a dead horse (word of the day!) territory. I've never actually discussed anything with the guy, so it's easy for me to come in here and tell everyone to settle down. The stuff just tired me out in this particular thread. Of course, I made the complaint like, days ago, so I'm over it now anyways.

As far as M. Night is concerned, does anyone have an actual review of The Happening yet? I was hoping some might be out by now. I heard it's not being screened for critics, but I know some audiences have seen the movie already. There has been no positive hype for the flick so far, though...
Lookin' grim.

[LordSimen]

Alrighty then, this topic has been derailed one too many times as it is we don't need to turn this into a debate now on whether or not people are treating me fairly. I'm flattered, really, but that's something that can be discussed in private and left between me and the posters in question. I know in the past I've made mention of people having a vendetta against me, but those posts were made more out of frustration than actual fact. There's only one poster I know for sure does hold a grudge against me (I'm not going to name names) and the reason I know that one for a fact is because he sent me angry personal attacks in my PM's last month.

Onto the debate/argument/whatever going on in this thread about M. Night: The main problem here seems to that there are two separate arguments in this thread that simply stemmed from the same topic. It is my fault, I will concede, that this has happened. So allow me to clear a few things up on these two arguments:

On the subject of the critics bias to M. Night:

This argument I made originally was intended to be purely for the critics, but after this argument continued I eventually dragged the entirety of everyone who watched the film in on the debate. I apologize for this for this as well.

I concede that the entirety of everyone who saw the Lady in the Water didn't hold a bias against the film due to The Village, or to M. Night in general. I will also concede that the thread on this board about Lady in the Water from the past wasn't just people debating whether or not Lady in the Water was a testament to Shyamalan's ego. I acknowledged this before but apparently people ignored my statement about how I must have simply remembered it differently form what it was.

However, I am still not convinced that many critics didn't have a bias walking into Lady in the Water. Notice, I say critics. I do not say the average film goer.

(SIDE BAR: There is a difference between the critics and the average film goers. One of the major differences being that it was the critics themselves, the men and women being paid for by newspapers and magazines to write thorough reviews on films every weekend, that were presented in a negative light in Lady in the Water. The average film goer, however, was not.)

My reason for this feeling comes from reviews such as Roger Ebert's:

I'm sorry. Don't believe me. I am the villain. OK, not me, precisely, but Film Criticism Itself, embodied by the splendid (movie critic word) Bob Balaban as Mr. Farber, who is this film's own resident newspaper movie critic, offering caustic, self-aware commentary on the shortcomings of "Lady in the Water" as it sloshes along.


It seems that for some critics, the character of The Critic insulted them and perhaps caused them to lower their rating on the film. I'm not actually arguing the the film would be presented with perfect scores across the board from every critic across the world if the critic character did not exist. I don't believe that, nor do I even believe the film itself is perfect.

I'm merely saying that I am damn sure that if the critic character didn't directly attack movie critics themselves, that perhaps the film wouldn't be sitting at the 24% slot on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps, it would be at the 42% slot next to The Village. Perhaps it would be at the 30% slot.

However many percentiles it would increase is beyond me, I don't know how many critics may have held the bias and left it out of their reviews nor have I read every review on the planet of the film to see how many did. What is clear to me is that some critics did take offense, and that offense probably did lead to a bit of bias in regard to how they scored the film.

Onto the argument on M. Night Shyamalan's ego:

M. Night Shyamalan is not an egotistical man, but rather a passionate film maker. Egotistical would imply that M. Night is either self centered, selfish, conceited or self absorbed. The number one argument brought in support of Shyamalan's egotism is the argument of him casting himself in Lady in the Water as a writer who will one day change the world.

First, allow me to bring in M. Night's own words on that subject from an interview he provided to Horror.com:

Q: You have a pivotal acting part in the film, which leads one to believe that you really had something to say through that character. That character was going to change the world, but do you really believe that filmmaking or writing can change the world?

Shyamalan: Well, you know what it is? Let me answer the first part of the question. This is my seventh film. In the first movie that was Praying With Anger, I was the lead in that, and that was a very tiny movie in India and then Wide Awake I wasn’t in that at all, and then Sixth Sense and Unbreakable I had very small parts, because I was learning to make movies in the big studio system, and then Signs I had a big part. There was only like five characters in it, and I was the fifth character, and for me, it was an important part emotionally, and this was more like that for me. Those two movies had characters that I wrote that I was like, “I really need to say that emotionally, that means something to me.”

Now with regards to the character in Lady, the idea of Harriet Beecher Stowe was that idea that really caught me, just caught me, and I said, “Wow, this idea that you write a book and somebody like Lincoln reads the book and other people in that time period read that book and you’re creating change and then someone who can make a difference decides to do something about it.”

Harriet Beecher Stowe didn’t know she was doing all that, she was just writing a book, but it actually opened minds and created point of views, and the power of the writer is the wish that an angel would come in and say, “You think that that sucks right now? You should do it because down the line, the 80th person that’s going to read it and is going to cause this to the left and this to the right and you’ll be part of a chain that you can’t possibly know, but it’s very important that you keep acting, that you be proactive. That you believe you have a purpose.” The link in the chain, that if any one of us doesn’t do our little link in the chain, the eventuality doesn’t happen, so if we’re all just a group of people who don’t believe in ourselves, don’t believe in our purpose, we can’t build off each other.

How do we know what part we’re going to play in the chain? Just positive energy, empowering positive energy moving forward will create an incredible network of things. I’m sure that Spike’s influences influenced millions of people and you have to believe in yourself like that. To be part of it, so that if an angel could tell you, so you wouldn’t give up that.

How many people don’t believe in that, that they’re part of that inevitable change of things. My babysitter once just left a book by mistake that she was reading about how people are having a hard time making ends meet because their cost of living is so high and they’re not saving anything, so they’re always renting. It’s called Nickel & Dime this book, so I went and I bought a bunch of low income houses and built them up and gave them to families in Philadelphia, because my babysitter was reading it, because her teacher had assigned it to her, because the teacher was moved by this lady. Look at that chain of events, you know what I mean? All part of it, all from writers, but all a chain of events. I mean, it’s a beautiful thing. It’s just an empowering thing to be able to hear, if you could, the beauty of the spiral of things that happen. If God could tell you when you die, this is what you did. It would be so cool.

This interview leads us into the thought process of M. Night Shyamalan and what his intentions were in not only the part he casted himself in but also why he wrote the part in the first place. Those who believe M. Night casted himself in the part out of ego would say that he he did it to portray himself as the future savior of the world. But this, if his own words are any indication, was not his intention.

How do we know what part we’re going to play in the chain? Just positive energy, empowering positive energy moving forward will create an incredible network of things. I’m sure that Spike’s influences influenced millions of people and you have to believe in yourself like that. To be part of it, so that if an angel could tell you, so you wouldn’t give up that.

M. Night wanted to send a message to all writers and artist across the world that they might one day create a piece of work with a positive message that might one day inspire someone else to create something, which would in turn inspire someone else, and then another person, and another, and perhaps lead us all into a better world. He is not implying that he is the world's savior himself, but rather that any artist can inspire and he believes in the power of the art itself.

Gordon posted quotes from M. Night's book, allow me to bring them back into play:


If [LitW] came together, it would be like Dylan and Clapton and Springsteen and Eminem and Kanye West and Miles Davis and Bonnie Raitt and Joan Armatrading and Jerry Garcia and every musician you've ever loved joining George Harrison and belting out the opening chord of 'A Hard Day's Night' at the same time."

[on demanding execs read his scripts on their days off] "[Shyamalan] was comfortable getting in the middle of people's weekend. He felt that the reading of his script should not be considered work. It should add to the weekend's pleasure."

"If you're a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney - if you're M. Night Shyamalan -"

These quote were brought into the argument in order to show M. Night's Egoism. The logic behind the quote is that M. Night is comparing himself to great artists and therefore thinks of himself as a great artist as well.

However, once again, that is not M. Night's intention. M. Night isn't quoting great artists in order to make make a comparison with himself for the purpose of making himself seem great as well. In truth, he's quoting artists he readily admires for their integrity, their mastery of their art or craft, their impact upon the world and for their ability to never give in and always do what they felt was right.

Now, some people may look at these quotes, namely the last one, and say there's no hint at all of M. Night doing anything other than saying "Look at me, I'm M. Night Shyamalan and I'm as great as Bob Dylan!" However, the only reason a person might come to that conclusion is due to the fact that they are only being given one section of the quote. It lacks context, it lacks any back ground or history behind the quote. It's looking at the quote from a superficial level and not actually going into Shyamalan's reasoning behind the quote.

Let's take a look at the quote in it's complete form:
"The lesson of Night's own 34 years was so clear to him: If you're a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney -- if you're M. Night Shyamalan -- and you have faith and a vision and something original to say, money will come. But if you're chasing money, the audience will see you for what you are. Night knew his ideas were no longer making an impact on Nina. He was losing her, losing the hold he once had on her. He blamed that on the culture of her corporation. Disney, he realized, in the blind final years of the Michael Eisner regime, had changed. It was now in the business of cloning."

As the entirety of the quote reveals, M. Night wasn't implying that the thing he has in common with Bob Dylan, Michael Jordon, and Walt Disney is that he's great. He was implying that if you are a man with faith and a vision, if you are focused and prove that you have something to say then money to finance your projects will come.

He's saying he admires those three because they aren't in it for the money, but rather the craft itself. Bob Dylan was a musician who cared more about the state of the world than his own pay check, Michael Jordon couldn't care less about what the next commercial deal he landed was, as long as he was able to play the game he had a passion for playing. Walt Disney never let anyone turn away his vision and strove to create the greatest works he possibly could. He's showing admiration for them and their visions. He's not comparing himself to them on an artistic level but a mind set level.

Now onto the first quote Gordon presented:
If [LitW] came together, it would be like Dylan and Clapton and Springsteen and Eminem and Kanye West and Miles Davis and Bonnie Raitt and Joan Armatrading and Jerry Garcia and every musician you've ever loved joining George Harrison and belting out the opening chord of 'A Hard Day's Night' at the same time.

M. Night Shyamalan with this quote is implying that he thinks Lady in the Water could be something great. The reason he brought in Dylan, Clapton, Springsteen and even Eminem and Kanye West was not to put himself on their level but rather his way of expressing how he feels the project will be. It directly refers to his passion and love for Lady in the Water, not himself.



In short, M. Night Shyamalan may seem like an egotistical, self centered jerk when you take his actions and quotes out of context. But that can be said for any artist or passionate man. When you actually put his words, his actions and his choices into context then his true motivations are revealed.



The question frequently presented to me in this thread is whether or not I understand people's stances on M. Night Shyamalan's ego. The answer is no, I do not understand. Because I don't understand why someone would judge a person based on the surface without looking into the subtext, or why someone would make a decision based on half a quote without any context. I don't understand and I probably never will.

[The Postmaster General]

Wondering if any one topic is qualified for discussion on an internet messageboard is like trying to find people-food your dog won't eat. I think my last three posts have proved that point pretty well. :D I dunno about lordsimen, but I'm happy to read/discuss m. night's ego for the simple reason that people here are bringing it up to make fun of him for it. I've said before that it shouldn't have any bearing on whether people embrace his films or not, but still, dogs eat anything people eat, even if it's in the garbage.
Unless you have one of those snooty Paris Hilton dogs.


I'm just not seeing it that way, because my intent isn't to degrade LordSimen's character as much as it is in trying to understand his reasoning behind what he's insisting.

I think everyone is, and everyone is getting the impression that LordSimen is modifying his stance as the topic develops. Maybe it's progress, or maybe it's a lot of people who may or may not be bright and passionate about movies (and a few alleged funny ones) coming together to have a discussion.

Did you see Simen's post below? That's fantastic, and exactly why I take the time to respond to him, because regardless of how much I don't agree with his conclusions, I am interested in knowing them because of that passion for movies thing. I'll respond to that post momentarily, but I'm building suspense right now by bringing it up, because M. Night builds suspense. References I make to M. Night in this thread should be regarded as such because this thread is about M. Night and I think EVERYONE agrees that M. Night rocks most when he's doing stuff like that instead of casting himself in movie roles that boil down to him winking at the camera. So I'd rather not cast myself into this discussion. ;) <wink>


If it's a matter of "Why do you just smack out one liners and post funny pictures", it's this: I have had disagreements with someguy, X-Nightcrawler, BubbaStrangelove, and MANY other schmoes here, some many, MANY times.

Yeah, if it were your name in the place of Simen's or mine, or what-not, and the posts all read the same, the topic would have gone the same.

Alrighty then, this topic has been derailed one too many times as it is we don't need to turn this into a debate now on whether or not people are treating me fairly. I'm flattered, really, but that's something that can be discussed in private and left between me and the posters in question. I know in the past I've made mention of people having a vendetta against me, but those posts were made more out of frustration than actual fact. There's only one poster I know for sure does hold a grudge against me (I'm not going to name names) and the reason I know that one for a fact is because he sent me angry personal attacks in my PM's last month.

Onto the debate/argument/whatever going on in this thread about M. Night: The main problem here seems to that there are two separate arguments in this thread that simply stemmed from the same topic. It is my fault, I will concede, that this has happened. So allow me to clear a few things up on these two arguments:

On the subject of the critics bias to M. Night:

This argument I made originally was intended to be purely for the critics, but after this argument continued I eventually dragged the entirety of everyone who watched the film in on the debate. I apologize for this for this as well.

I concede that the entirety of everyone who saw the Lady in the Water didn't hold a bias against the film due to The Village, or to M. Night in general. I will also concede that the thread on this board about Lady in the Water from the past wasn't just people debating whether or not Lady in the Water was a testament to Shyamalan's ego. I acknowledged this before but apparently people ignored my statement about how I must have simply remembered it differently form what it was.

However, I am still not convinced that many critics didn't have a bias walking into Lady in the Water. Notice, I say critics. I do not say the average film goer.

(SIDE BAR: There is a difference between the critics and the average film goers. One of the major differences being that it was the critics themselves, the men and women being paid for by newspapers and magazines to write thorough reviews on films every weekend, that were presented in a negative light in Lady in the Water. The average film goer, however, was not.)

My reason for this feeling comes from reviews such as Roger Ebert's:




It seems that for some critics, the character of The Critic insulted them and perhaps caused them to lower their rating on the film. I'm not actually arguing the the film would be presented with perfect scores across the board from every critic across the world if the critic character did not exist. I don't believe that, nor do I even believe the film itself is perfect.

I'm merely saying that I am damn sure that if the critic character didn't directly attack movie critics themselves, that perhaps the film wouldn't be sitting at the 24% slot on Rotten Tomatoes. Perhaps, it would be at the 42% slot next to The Village. Perhaps it would be at the 30% slot.

However many percentiles it would increase is beyond me, I don't know how many critics may have held the bias and left it out of their reviews nor have I read every review on the planet of the film to see how many did. What is clear to me is that some critics did take offense, and that offense probably did lead to a bit of bias in regard to how they scored the film.

Onto the argument on M. Night Shyamalan's ego:

M. Night Shyamalan is not an egotistical man, but rather a passionate film maker. Egotistical would imply that M. Night is either self centered, selfish, conceited or self absorbed. The number one argument brought in support of Shyamalan's egotism is the argument of him casting himself in Lady in the Water as a writer who will one day change the world.

First, allow me to bring in M. Night's own words on that subject from an interview he provided to Horror.com:



This interview leads us into the thought process of M. Night Shyamalan and what his intentions were in not only the part he casted himself in but also why he wrote the part in the first place. Those who believe M. Night casted himself in the part out of ego would say that he he did it to portray himself as the future savior of the world. But this, if his own words are any indication, was not his intention.



M. Night wanted to send a message to all writers and artist across the world that they might one day create a piece of work with a positive message that might one day inspire someone else to create something, which would in turn inspire someone else, and then another person, and another, and perhaps lead us all into a better world. He is not implying that he is the world's savior himself, but rather that any artist can inspire and he believes in the power of the art itself.

Gordon posted quotes from M. Night's book, allow me to bring them back into play:



These quote were brought into the argument in order to show M. Night's Egoism. The logic behind the quote is that M. Night is comparing himself to great artists and therefore thinks of himself as a great artist as well.

However, once again, that is not M. Night's intention. M. Night isn't quoting great artists in order to make make a comparison with himself for the purpose of making himself seem great as well. In truth, he's quoting artists he readily admires for their integrity, their mastery of their art or craft, their impact upon the world and for their ability to never give in and always do what they felt was right.

Now, some people may look at these quotes, namely the last one, and say there's no hint at all of M. Night doing anything other than saying "Look at me, I'm M. Night Shyamalan and I'm as great as Bob Dylan!" However, the only reason a person might come to that conclusion is due to the fact that they are only being given one section of the quote. It lacks context, it lacks any back ground or history behind the quote. It's looking at the quote from a superficial level and not actually going into Shyamalan's reasoning behind the quote.

Let's take a look at the quote in it's complete form:


As the entirety of the quote reveals, M. Night wasn't implying that the thing he has in common with Bob Dylan, Michael Jordon, and Walt Disney is that he's great. He was implying that if you are a man with faith and a vision, if you are focused and prove that you have something to say then money to finance your projects will come.

He's saying he admires those three because they aren't in it for the money, but rather the craft itself. Bob Dylan was a musician who cared more about the state of the world than his own pay check, Michael Jordon couldn't care less about what the next commercial deal he landed was, as long as he was able to play the game he had a passion for playing. Walt Disney never let anyone turn away his vision and strove to create the greatest works he possibly could. He's showing admiration for them and their visions. He's not comparing himself to them on an artistic level but a mind set level.

Now onto the first quote Gordon presented:


M. Night Shyamalan with this quote is implying that he thinks Lady in the Water could be something great. The reason he brought in Dylan, Clapton, Springsteen and even Eminem and Kanye West was not to put himself on their level but rather his way of expressing how he feels the project will be. It directly refers to his passion and love for Lady in the Water, not himself.



In short, M. Night Shyamalan may seem like an egotistical, self centered jerk when you take his actions and quotes out of context. But that can be said for any artist or passionate man. When you actually put his words, his actions and his choices into context then his true motivations are revealed.



The question frequently presented to me in this thread is whether or not I understand people's stances on M. Night Shyamalan's ego. The answer is no, I do not understand. Because I don't understand why someone would judge a person based on the surface without looking into the subtext, or why someone would make a decision based on half a quote without any context. I don't understand and I probably never will.


Ultimately I think this is all just a matter of semantics veiling our personal likes of M. Night's films.

The thing is that "ego" is not necessarily synonymous with a negative trait. This is why I brought up PT Anderson earlier, and I think in the thread we references Quentin Tarantino was brought up.

Applying ego as a negative trait is an extremely narrow interpretation of what it means, and one I don't think everyone accepts (hence the PT, and QT mentions...) Ultimately ego implies a sense of one's self. M. Night has an abundance of that. He wears himself on his movies. It may be for good reasons or bad, but he does exactly that.

The interview you posted validates this because he's talking exactly about his role in the film, and how the film pertains to him and his intentions. He is very self-aware of himself, and saying your film will be great is self-important, which is the most negative view of 'ego' but even still can only imply he is striving for greatness. Many autuers do this, but few outright state it -- when they do, this turns the center not to the movie, but toward their intentions, therefor shifting the focus onto their ego.

I believe it is the sole opinion of true movie fans that this in no way affects the film, unless it is contained to affect within the film. In QT's case, at least most here on the board, feel he gets results. In M. Night's case, many of us here, feel his movies have problems, and at times that might be that M. Night is not a good actor, and at other times or sometimes at the same time, that M. Night needs to let his films speak for themselves (if it's R-rated and shocking, we'll get that...). For the most part, though, most negative reviews tend to think the movies are slow or uninvolving. Even reviews that rail his ego will eventually get to the pacing or disappointment in where the film went.

If we are going to judge The Happening, we will all do it on the basis on the film. Right now, the fucking problem is that M. Night's EGO is all the fuck over the marketing campaign for his movie. We have one ad that boasts every single movie he made before and is about nothing more than the fact that it's an M. Night movie. Really, it reveals no plots, does show the actors and some scenes, but the majority of the commercial is all about M. Night. Then we have another commercial that is even a step further, and come on --- It's M. Night talking to a camera about his movie being rated-R. I mean, he's actually in the commercial sitting in front of an empty background.

So, if you want to take umbrage with us taking umbrage with M. Night's ego, you need to focus it off of reviews and threads from over a year ago, and focus it onto M. Night, because he is the one that is bringing it here. Or, at least the marketing department is, hence the title of this thread. You can see the SIGNS that M. Night has an ego. You don't need any SIXTH SENSE, but let's be real, he is not longer UNBREAKABLE, because people are seeing stuff like LADY IN THE WATER and THE VILLAGE.

[Shinigami]

I'm just not seeing it that way, because my intent isn't to degrade LordSimen's character as much as it is in trying to understand his reasoning behind what he's insisting.

Inconceivable! We don't have a misunderstanding, do we?
"I dunno about lordsimen, but I'm happy to read/discuss m. night's ego for the simple reason that people here are bringing it up to make fun of him for it." By "him", the object people are making fun of, did you think I was still referring to Lordsimen? Because I meant M. Night. I was already off my lordsimen rant.
I meant to say that I was happy in discussing whether m. night was egotistical or not simply because people here brought that up as reasons why they dislike this director. Even if ego probably has no baring on whether a fan loves or hates M. Night's films, there's no reason we can't just discuss the director himself. Someone says he's egotisticaly, and if I disagree, I counter (for example, how much sway does this director really have on how his movie is advertised?). Then I make a joke about dogs.
But maybe you understood that, and you just wanted to hear lordsimen's personal reason for discussing ego v passion, which I was butting in on. If that's the case, I have one thing to say to you, bubbastrangelove...

...I'm trying to insert myself into the actual on-topic conversation here so I can contribute a point for once. Otherwise I'm in danger of just being the douchebag that sauntered into this'ere saloon, shot wildly into the air, and told everyone to mind their manners. So I'm going to have to butt in for awhile about m. night in order to recover. For the sake of my immense 176-post reputation. :cool:

[LordSimen]

Ultimately I think this is all just a matter of semantics veiling our personal likes of M. Night's films.

The thing is that "ego" is not necessarily synonymous with a negative trait. This is why I brought up PT Anderson earlier, and I think in the thread we references Quentin Tarantino was brought up.

Applying ego as a negative trait is an extremely narrow interpretation of what it means, and one I don't think everyone accepts (hence the PT, and QT mentions...) Ultimately ego implies a sense of one's self. M. Night has an abundance of that. He wears himself on his movies. It may be for good reasons or bad, but he does exactly that.


I suppose you are correct in that this is an argument over semantics.

I've always felt Ego was one of those negative traits which are looked at as ones that are not very fashionable to have. At least, that's how I was raised. So I've always had the term "ego" put into a negative light in all honesty. Even with guys I love like QT, I feel one of his personal negative traits is that of ego.

But I also felt that all of us, each individual on the face of this earth who calls himself human, has some sort of negative trait with in them or at least one that someone else might perceive as negative. I suppose to me, Ego is a negative thing.

Is that a narrow minded view, or at least a narrow interpretation of the term ego? Perhaps. I'm not sure it is, but I could just be blinded by my upbringing on that subject. I don't think there's anything good about being full of yourself. Confidence is key but there's a fine line between that and ego.

I definitely agree that M. Night Shyamalan has a sense of himself, but I don't necessarily equate having a sense of one's self to having an ego. I agree that in order to have an ego, you must have a sense of yourself, but I don't agree the other way around. An ego, to me, is having a sense of yourself that is completely positive and without flaw. Like looking at yourself through a "can do no wrong" and "everything you touch turns to gold" filter.

I don't particularly feel M. Night has that trait. I definitely feel he's passionate and feels very strongly for his work, and is proud of the work he has done. But I also don't think he views himself as perfect, or his work as perfect. I think he just feels he has the integrity to say that he did what he wanted to, and accomplished the goal he set out to do with his work at least as far as his personal goals are concerned. I don't think that's an egotistical trait as much as a testament to his ability to set realistic personal goals.


The interview you posted validates this because he's talking exactly about his role in the film, and how the film pertains to him and his intentions. He is very self-aware of himself, and saying your film will be great is self-important, which is the most negative view of 'ego' but even still can only imply he is striving for greatness. Many autuers do this, but few outright state it -- when they do, this turns the center not to the movie, but toward their intentions, therefor shifting the focus onto their ego.

I believe it is the sole opinion of true movie fans that this in no way affects the film, unless it is contained to affect within the film. In QT's case, at least most here on the board, feel he gets results. In M. Night's case, many of us here, feel his movies have problems, and at times that might be that M. Night is not a good actor, and at other times or sometimes at the same time, that M. Night needs to let his films speak for themselves (if it's R-rated and shocking, we'll get that...). For the most part, though, most negative reviews tend to think the movies are slow or uninvolving. Even reviews that rail his ego will eventually get to the pacing or disappointment in where the film went.

If we are going to judge The Happening, we will all do it on the basis on the film. Right now, the fucking problem is that M. Night's EGO is all the fuck over the marketing campaign for his movie. We have one ad that boasts every single movie he made before and is about nothing more than the fact that it's an M. Night movie. Really, it reveals no plots, does show the actors and some scenes, but the majority of the commercial is all about M. Night. Then we have another commercial that is even a step further, and come on --- It's M. Night talking to a camera about his movie being rated-R. I mean, he's actually in the commercial sitting in front of an empty background.

So, if you want to take umbrage with us taking umbrage with M. Night's ego, you need to focus it off of reviews and threads from over a year ago, and focus it onto M. Night, because he is the one that is bringing it here. Or, at least the marketing department is, hence the title of this thread. You can see the SIGNS that M. Night has an ego. You don't need any SIXTH SENSE, but let's be real, he is not longer UNBREAKABLE, because people are seeing stuff like LADY IN THE WATER and THE VILLAGE.


I don't quite agree that saying your film will be great brings a sense of self importance. If that were true, then all artists would be self important. Be they musicians, writers, directors, painters, I'd be hard pressed to find any one of them who set out to write a song, make a movie, or paint a canvas with the intent of creating something that isn't great. You always set your goal to create something great and put it in your mindset that your piece will be something special. It's part of your motivation as an artist to complete it, at least that's how I always felt personally as an artist myself.

If you set out to do a project believing that it will be bad, and that it will forever will be bad. And you know it will be bad- Then what's the point? Where's the artistic integrity in pursuing a piece that you know is going to be bad and have no passion for? I don't think it's particularly fair to label any artist who thinks their work is going to be something great as egotistical. If anything, that just makes them an artist.

I agree that most of the film reviews which rail on his ego also eventually go into their belief that the films are slow, uninvolving, poorly written or perhaps poorly paced. I've read many of those reviews and have definitely seen enough to prove that to be true. I have no problem with that.

I just feel that M. Night's ego, and whether or not he personally likes critics, shouldn't be something that's factored into the rating of a film. I feel at least those two things have nothing to do with the quality of the film itself but are rather moot points that are only brought up as personal vendetta points against M. Night.

I don't equate a marketing campaign to a director's ego, mostly because there is hardly a time when the director himself as much control over the marketing campaign. In truth, I think the reason why most of his films boast his name more than the actual film itself in the marketing campaign is because most of his films are unconventional and hard to market to the average film goer as it is. However, saying it's an M. Night Shyamalan film and reminding those of what that means (Signs, Unbreakable, The Sixth Sense, The Village), clearly markets the film for them. Because then the film goer knows going in that the film is going to be unconventional.

As for him being in the commercial itself talking about the film being his first R rated film, well, I suppose to him it must be a big deal. I'm not sure how him feeling it's important to stress this being his first R rated picture, which it is, really equates to him having an ego. It sounds like he's just trying to emulate one of his biggest idols, Alfred Hitchcock.

(I'm not gonna lie, I had to look up the word UMBRAGE after reading this post. :p)

[thedudeman69]

If you set out to do a project believing that it will be bad, and that it will forever will be bad. And you know it will be bad- Then what's the point? Where's the artistic integrity in pursuing a piece that you know is going to be bad and have no passion for? I don't think it's particularly fair to label any artist who thinks their work is going to be something great as egotistical. If anything, that just makes them an artist.


Really? why do you think we bash Uwe Boll, Paul W.S. Anderson, and the guys that direct all those awful spoof movies? Because they all have this air about them that says they think they are directing a movie that is actually better than people think it is, but it is actually worse than it is. Also, where is the artistic integrity of them saying to themselves "Hmm, I think we are pissing off people by making our films thinking that they are better than they are, so we'll just keep pissing them off by doing half assed moviemaking"




Just because you are a director doesn't mean you are a artist.

[LordSimen]

Really? why do you think we bash Uwe Boll, Paul W.S. Anderson, and the guys that direct all those awful spoof movies? Because they all have this air about them that says they think they are directing a movie that is actually better than people think it is, but it is actually worse than it is. Also, where is the artistic integrity of them saying to themselves "Hmm, I think we are pissing off people by making our films thinking that they are better than they are, so we'll just keep pissing them off by doing half assed moviemaking"

There's a big difference between thinking your next film is going to be something great and perhaps something special and thinking that you're the "the only genius in the whole fucking [movie] business."

One's ego, the other's simply being passionate. As for Paul W.S. Anderson, people tend to bash him for his work, not his personality. I don't remember anyone ever hating Paul because he was egotistical. Which honestly, I'm not sure where you got that from. The guy doesn't come across as egotistical to me.


Just because you are a director doesn't mean you are a artist.

Yes it does.

However, just because you're a director doesn't mean you have artistic integrity. A man who directs the lowest common denominator on purpose with no passion for it other than to make money definitely would be one who's an artist but lacks any integrity.

[The Postmaster General]

Inconceivable! We don't have a misunderstanding, do we?
"I dunno about lordsimen, but I'm happy to read/discuss m. night's ego for the simple reason that people here are bringing it up to make fun of him for it." By "him", the object people are making fun of, did you think I was still referring to Lordsimen? Because I meant M. Night. I was already off my lordsimen rant.
I meant to say that I was happy in discussing whether m. night was egotistical or not simply because people here brought that up as reasons why they dislike this director. Even if ego probably has no baring on whether a fan loves or hates M. Night's films, there's no reason we can't just discuss the director himself. Someone says he's egotisticaly, and if I disagree, I counter (for example, how much sway does this director really have on how his movie is advertised?). Then I make a joke about dogs.
But maybe you understood that, and you just wanted to hear lordsimen's personal reason for discussing ego v passion, which I was butting in on. If that's the case, I have one thing to say to you, bubbastrangelove...


No, I wasn't responding to the last sentence of your quote, but to the what I took to be the subject of your post, or what you were basing your response on:

"Wondering if any one topic is qualified for discussion on an internet messageboard is like trying to find people-food your dog won't eat. I think my last three posts have proved that point pretty well. I dunno about lordsimen, but I'm happy to read/discuss m. night's ego for the simple reason that people here are bringing it up to make fun of him for it. I've said before that it shouldn't have any bearing on whether people embrace his films or not, but still, dogs eat anything people eat, even if it's in the garbage.
Unless you have one of those snooty Paris Hilton dogs."

I don't see it that way, in that I don't see that anyone is trying to disqualify the subject of M. Night's ego as being discussion worthy.

Then I go on to explain that my understanding is that the thread is moving a certain way because of a feeling that certain things are being ignored, and added that I felt we were more interested in hearing LS's thoughts than in degrading them.


...I'm trying to insert myself into the actual on-topic conversation here so I can contribute a point for once. Otherwise I'm in danger of just being the douchebag that sauntered into this'ere saloon, shot wildly into the air, and told everyone to mind their manners. So I'm going to have to butt in for awhile about m. night in order to recover. For the sake of my immense 176-post reputation. :cool:

Then I don't understand why you made one sentence of that entire response centered around your views on M. Night, and the rest of it was about what essentially boiled down to you, me, and everyone else except M. Night.

I gave a pretty lengthy response to LS's recent OT comments and IMO offered many counter-points that were up for discussion. Least of those dealt with people on the boards. Although they were directed at LS, I question why you wouldn't "butt-in" with that discussion, but would "butt-in" in other areas to make a point totally unrelated to anything other than the dynamics of the boards, posters intents, and other things totally unrelated to this thread, including mentions of post counts and reputations.

I'm aware that there are a rare set of schmoes who would be happy to see this thread closed down, but am concerned that others would be happy to see it dissolve into someone looking like an asshole.

If you want to talk about M. Night, I'm more than willing to read your responses. If you want to keep talking about whatever, I and most of this board has no problem with threads going on tangents as long as there's some semblance of a rationally and progressing discussion about movies. I also have no problem with reading and responding to your points, based on the optimism that everyone is here on these boards for the same reason.

That being said, at this point I would like to get back to the OT discussion with LS, but don't get shy though, it has nothing to do with the size of his post count. (I actually had to check it before making that attempt at humor.)


I suppose you are correct in that this is an argument over semantics.

Don't sound so disappointed! :mad:

:)

:p

I've always felt Ego was one of those negative traits which are looked at as ones that are not very fashionable to have. At least, that's how I was raised. So I've always had the term "ego" put into a negative light in all honesty. Even with guys I love like QT, I feel one of his personal negative traits is that of ego.

But I also felt that all of us, each individual on the face of this earth who calls himself human, has some sort of negative trait with in them or at least one that someone else might perceive as negative. I suppose to me, Ego is a negative thing.

Is that a narrow minded view, or at least a narrow interpretation of the term ego? Perhaps. I'm not sure it is, but I could just be blinded by my upbringing on that subject. I don't think there's anything good about being full of yourself. Confidence is key but there's a fine line between that and ego.

I definitely agree that M. Night Shyamalan has a sense of himself, but I don't necessarily equate having a sense of one's self to having an ego. I agree that in order to have an ego, you must have a sense of yourself, but I don't agree the other way around. An ego, to me, is having a sense of yourself that is completely positive and without flaw. Like looking at yourself through a "can do no wrong" and "everything you touch turns to gold" filter.

I don't particularly feel M. Night has that trait. I definitely feel he's passionate and feels very strongly for his work, and is proud of the work he has done. But I also don't think he views himself as perfect, or his work as perfect. I think he just feels he has the integrity to say that he did what he wanted to, and accomplished the goal he set out to do with his work at least as far as his personal goals are concerned. I don't think that's an egotistical trait as much as a testament to his ability to set realistic personal goals.


Well, you are moving more from ego (no capital e*) and more toward arrogance and maybe pretension, while I think even still are applied as objective traits when dealing with artists or those people who are creative in nature.

It's based on the idea of conceit, which as artistic endeavors are concerned, amounts to sort of a gimmick that a person would put into his work. Again though, gimmick is another word that people has been stigmatized by negative usage - most notably, saying that a movie was "just a gimmick", when in reality, the criticism is that the movie was not well-rounded. Movies like Memento have a gimmick, but positive reviews will actually state that gimmick and apply it to how it was used in the film, instead of dismissing it as "just a gimmick." In addition, people liked the story and other aspects. So, subsequently, you don't hear something singled out.

M. Night, undoubtedly puts conceit into his film, whether it is appreciated or not is a matter of taste, but it is there. Whether it makes him a conceited person depends on whether people find the conceit worth it or not -- if it is not, the general response is that he's gone from a self-awareness about what will make his movie best, to a self-awareness of himself and himself alone. That's the difference.

Ego, pretension and conceit are all terms that objectively describe a person and the way they make films. It is the conclusions drawn from these terms, and the final line that determines whether they are used as criticisms or as just descriptions.

I like Wes Anderson films, all of them, but I also find them to have an air of pretense, and that is one of the things I like about them, because I think it creates a unique vision because of Anderson's seemingly contrasting appreciation for the chaotic. I feel without a certain pretense, Anderson's films wouldn't be the same. Of course, he could prove me wrong and he can always disappoint me by putting out a story I don't like.

Others feel differently, and to them the pretentiousness is a negative trait, because they don't like the sum of the film. The same happens with M. Night, QT and many others. In the end, it generally has nothing to do with why their films are trashed or applauded. The problem most certainly has to do with such terms seldom being used mostly as a negative, and just having a stigma attached to them, but I think for the most part, movie fans understand the difference.

*I only mention the cap e thing because of trauma derived from a game of Scrabble that turned violent and someone got stabbed in the gut.




I don't quite agree that saying your film will be great brings a sense of self importance. If that were true, then all artists would be self important. Be they musicians, writers, directors, painters, I'd be hard pressed to find any one of them who set out to write a song, make a movie, or paint a canvas with the intent of creating something that isn't great. You always set your goal to create something great and put it in your mindset that your piece will be something special. It's part of your motivation as an artist to complete it, at least that's how I always felt personally as an artist myself.

I don't think, and I doubt many do, that Judd Apatow makes his films thinking they will be compared to the most regarded works of art in a given medium. Really, I don't, and would be surprised if you did.

"Pineapple Express will be like seeing Monet, Van Gogh, Kandinski, Pollack, and Da Vinci all coming together to work on the same canvas..."

Is that really conceivable? I don't think anyone sees that, not even you, but I'm generally wrong by default, so I don't know... There is a pretense with the marketing that because it's from Apatow, people will like it as much as everything else, but I've never once seen Apatow going on about this -- maybe he does, but the difference is that he's not presenting it to us, or making a big point about it. He's not making things to be about his ego.

Sure, filmmakers strive to make the best film they can, but when you go from doing that, to the pretense of saying your goal is to make a great film - that indicates more self-awareness (ego), because now we are not only putting the film into play, but what? The author's self-awareness of their goals of making this film - their ego.

If you set out to do a project believing that it will be bad, and that it will forever will be bad. And you know it will be bad- Then what's the point? Where's the artistic integrity in pursuing a piece that you know is going to be bad and have no passion for? I don't think it's particularly fair to label any artist who thinks their work is going to be something great as egotistical. If anything, that just makes them an artist.

Actually, if you made something with the belief and intent of it being bad, that would also be egotistical.

I don't remember the exact quote, but Llyod Kaufman of Troma films once made a comparison to his company and Merchant-Ivory based on a similar basis. It was in his book "Make Your Own Damn Movie!" I looked but can't find it.

The point is that some artists actually start with a blank canvas and part of the creative process is in, basically, making it up as they go along. This is seen in a lot of comedies, where ad-libbing happens and things are created as the movie progresses. If it happens on accident, it's one thing, if it is intended, as in the case of Scorsese and The Departed, it happens with pretense. Everything, in terms of good or bad, just depends on how it works.

I agree that most of the film reviews which rail on his ego also eventually go into their belief that the films are slow, uninvolving, poorly written or perhaps poorly paced. I've read many of those reviews and have definitely seen enough to prove that to be true. I have no problem with that.

I just feel that M. Night's ego, and whether or not he personally likes critics, shouldn't be something that's factored into the rating of a film. I feel at least those two things have nothing to do with the quality of the film itself but are rather moot points that are only brought up as personal vendetta points against M. Night.

That's unfair though. You might as well say they shouldn't judge the film at all, because it was M. Night who put his views on critics into the film, not the critics or audience. It is part of his film and what his film is. You could apply that to so many other things that would be so wrong. It would be like saying you can't criticize Larry Clarke for showing too much underage flesh because "that's just who he is man, you gotta respect him even if you don't like his films!"

I don't equate a marketing campaign to a director's ego, mostly because there is hardly a time when the director himself as much control over the marketing campaign. In truth, I think the reason why most of his films boast his name more than the actual film itself in the marketing campaign is because most of his films are unconventional and hard to market to the average film goer as it is. However, saying it's an M. Night Shyamalan film and reminding those of what that means (Signs, Unbreakable, The Sixth Sense, The Village), clearly markets the film for them. Because then the film goer knows going in that the film is going to be unconventional.

That's why I separated the two - his ego and the way the film is marketed. The film is marketing his ego, which he has an abundance of. Otherwise, the "r-rated" spot would just be him sitting in front of a camera, saying "I don't know what to say about it - haven't really thought it out. See The Happening. Coming Soon!"

As for him being in the commercial itself talking about the film being his first R rated film, well, I suppose to him it must be a big deal. I'm not sure how him feeling it's important to stress this being his first R rated picture, which it is, really equates to him having an ego. It sounds like he's just trying to emulate one of his biggest idols, Alfred Hitchcock.

Because of the reasons I've gone over. The spot is more about M. Night than about the movie. The pretense is that because he is excited it's R-rated, everyone else should be. His conceit is that he's made an R-rated movie, and that will be what makes this one different. Again, it's just a state of self-awareness.

(I'm not gonna lie, I had to look up the word UMBRAGE after reading this post. :p)

Well, if I can offer just one thing to a thread... :D

[thedudeman69]

Yes it does.

However, just because you're a director doesn't mean you have artistic integrity. A man who directs the lowest common denominator on purpose with no passion for it other than to make money definitely would be one who's an artist but lacks any integrity.


You don't get what I am trying to say. None of those directors I mentioned have any artistic merit, or are artists. They just make the movies because in their own little head they find them to be masterpieces. They don't introduce new shots, or do any good writing, have good set design, or write good screenplays. They just are in Hollywood because of the money and the power play among studios to keep putting the same crap in theathers. The ones we do mention, do have artistic merit, and that is why we discuss sthem numorous times. not because they suck, but because they have lasting power.


You have low standards for filmmakers like that when you call them artists

[Shinigami]

Then I don't understand why you made one sentence of that entire response centered around your views on M. Night, and the rest of it was about what essentially boiled down to you, me, and everyone else except M. Night

...I said I was trying.
I don't know if I rubbed you the wrong way or anything by grouping you together with my earlier complaint, but everything I'm saying on the matter is in good cheer now. Since the mild dust has cleared away and I'm over my complaint, I feel kind of stupid for bringing it up in the first place, so I'm covering ground by playing with myself (in the non-gross non-masturbatory self-deprication way). You shouldn't have your serious face on here. I'm really just joking around about it now. This kind of stuff: :D ;) :cool:
As far as aruging semantics, it was clear at the start of the thread that people were using "egotistical" negatively, so they were making it out to be a bad thing. Likewise, when people make fun of QT's ego, they are usually doing it with the most negatively-associated definition of ego. I think the same thing happened with M. Night. Anything else is intellectualizing the point past the context.
Bubbastrangelove and lordsimen and thedudeman69 have gone off on their own interesting conversation that I can't think of anyway to elaborate on, so I'll just making a summation here about my thoughts concerning M. Night posts earlier in the thread: I do think Lady was a passion project for him, like The Fall is for tarsem (if anyone knows that example), whereas is both movies fail critically, the artist will brush those critics off and continue to adore their cinema child.
That feels genuine to me. But hollywood is almost allergic to self-congratulations, so I'm not surprised M. Night is hit for being egotistical in the negative way. Hell, didn't everyone also freaked out when james cameron said "I'm the king of the world!"? And what kind of mild remark is that in the heat of an oscar-winning moment.

Edit:...although I think cameron is supposed to be an admitted bighead, so maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot with that one. Damn.

[LordSimen]

Edit: Not done writing yet. Premature posting. WIll be fixed soon.

[LordSimen]

Well, you are moving more from ego (no capital e*) and more toward arrogance and maybe pretension, while I think even still are applied as objective traits when dealing with artists or those people who are creative in nature.

You may be very well correct about that. Specifically in my misinformed interpretation of ego I presented a post ago. It definitely does seem I'm describing arrogance rather than ego. This is probably simply because I tend to see them used together all too often and have simply forgotten that they mean two very different concepts.

It's based on the idea of conceit, which as artistic endeavors are concerned, amounts to sort of a gimmick that a person would put into his work. Again though, gimmick is another word that people has been stigmatized by negative usage - most notably, saying that a movie was "just a gimmick", when in reality, the criticism is that the movie was not well-rounded. Movies like Memento have a gimmick, but positive reviews will actually state that gimmick and apply it to how it was used in the film, instead of dismissing it as "just a gimmick." In addition, people liked the story and other aspects. So, subsequently, you don't hear something singled out.

M. Night, undoubtedly puts conceit into his film, whether it is appreciated or not is a matter of taste, but it is there. Whether it makes him a conceited person depends on whether people find the conceit worth it or not -- if it is not, the general response is that he's gone from a self-awareness about what will make his movie best, to a self-awareness of himself and himself alone. That's the difference.


I'm not sure I'd describe all artistic conceits as merely gimmicks. I'd probably use different words such as concepts or ideas to describe artistic conceits. Then again, I've never been a fan of the word gimmick mostly due to it's negative connotation and the fact that I've never found anything wrong with what people tend to refer to as "gimmicks."

I'm not so sure I'd say the conceits, the thoughts, the concepts or the ideas M. Night Shyamalan injects into his films are ones that I would consider acts of egoism. They all seem to be put into his projects because they serve the projects themselves. There isn't really any indication, at least to me, that he puts them in to make himself look good but rather make his project the best project it could possibly be.

Which, to me, is the difference between passion and ego. A decision made out of ego would be designed for the sole purpose of ones self and not for the purpose of art. On the other hand, a decision made out of passion in regards to art would be done to make the piece as best as it can be.

In choosing to cast himself in the part he did in Lady in the Water, while on the surface it may seem like he did it to make himself seem like a savior, I do not believe that was the actual reason the choice was made. He cast himself, a writer, in the part of a writer merely because a writer will know all that much more how a writer thinks and acts. The only difference between that and Jon Favreau casting Robert Downey Jr., a known lady's man with a quirky sense of humor and a history of substance abuse, as a known lady's man with a quirky sense of humor and history of alcoholism, is that in Jon Favreau's case he wasn't casting himself. And to me, that difference is inconsequential because casting someone for traits they already have, including casting yourself, is usually a choice made to serve the project.

I like Wes Anderson films, all of them, but I also find them to have an air of pretense, and that is one of the things I like about them, because I think it creates a unique vision because of Anderson's seemingly contrasting appreciation for the chaotic. I feel without a certain pretense, Anderson's films wouldn't be the same. Of course, he could prove me wrong and he can always disappoint me by putting out a story I don't like.

Others feel differently, and to them the pretentiousness is a negative trait, because they don't like the sum of the film. The same happens with M. Night, QT and many others. In the end, it generally has nothing to do with why their films are trashed or applauded. The problem most certainly has to do with such terms seldom being used mostly as a negative, and just having a stigma attached to them, but I think for the most part, movie fans understand the difference.

But what's interesting is that they tend to not use the words ego, pretension or conceit unless they are specifically using them as criticism. You will be hard pressed to find a review written praising a film for it's egotistical, pretentious and conceited screenplay.

But I do find what you're saying fascinating because you are completely correct that they can be qualities that can be thought of as positive or negative. I never really thought of ego, pretension or conceit in that light. I'm so used to them being used as negative terms I've never thought of them from the other side before.


That's unfair though. You might as well say they shouldn't judge the film at all, because it was M. Night who put his views on critics into the film, not the critics or audience. It is part of his film and what his film is. You could apply that to so many other things that would be so wrong. It would be like saying you can't criticize Larry Clarke for showing too much underage flesh because "that's just who he is man, you gotta respect him even if you don't like his films!"

Fair enough. You've definitely made your point there. I will concede that you are 100% right that my previous assessment was unfair.

I don't think, and I doubt many do, that Judd Apatow makes his films thinking they will be compared to the most regarded works of art in a given medium. Really, I don't, and would be surprised if you did.

"Pineapple Express will be like seeing Monet, Van Gogh, Kandinski, Pollack, and Da Vinci all coming together to work on the same canvas..."

Is that really conceivable? I don't think anyone sees that, not even you, but I'm generally wrong by default, so I don't know... There is a pretense with the marketing that because it's from Apatow, people will like it as much as everything else, but I've never once seen Apatow going on about this -- maybe he does, but the difference is that he's not presenting it to us, or making a big point about it. He's not making things to be about his ego.


Well you are correct that the Pineapple Express/Monet/VanGogh thought process would probably have never occured to Judd while making his films. However, do you think it would be inconceivable that while he was producing Superbad he didn't think that "this is gonna be the best teen comedy since Dazed and Confused, Porkies or the Breakfast Club," or at least had the thought cross his mind that Superbad was going to be great?

The thing about Judd, though, is I'd definitely say he's the kind of personality who even if he did think highly of the project he was working on would probably still act modest and not readily say whether or not the piece is going to be great or not in public. In a way you mentioned this by saying he's not presenting it to us, or making a point about it. But is there really any difference between thinking it and saying it?

I'm not quite sure this works, but, isn't a racist still a racist even if he never speaks of his racist thoughts?


Sure, filmmakers strive to make the best film they can, but when you go from doing that, to the pretense of saying your goal is to make a great film - that indicates more self-awareness (ego), because now we are not only putting the film into play, but what? The author's self-awareness of their goals of making this film - their ego.


I'm quite sure I understand what you mean here. But if you state that your goal is to make the best film you can, aren't you being self aware then too? I'm not quite sure I understand how stating that's any different from saying your film's going to great. Is it because saying your film is going to be great is a definitive, decisive answer and the other is open to interpretation?

If you have a feeling that your film is going to be great, something special, I don't necessarily think of that as being self aware... That's just being passionate.


That's why I separated the two - his ego and the way the film is marketed. The film is marketing his ego, which he has an abundance of. Otherwise, the "r-rated" spot would just be him sitting in front of a camera, saying "I don't know what to say about it - haven't really thought it out. See The Happening. Coming Soon!"

Because of the reasons I've gone over. The spot is more about M. Night than about the movie. The pretense is that because he is excited it's R-rated, everyone else should be. His conceit is that he's made an R-rated movie, and that will be what makes this one different. Again, it's just a state of self-awareness.

They maybe marketing his ego, but it is an ego entirely created by the marketing team itself. It doesn't actually exist once you take away the marketing team's strategy and sit down and interview M. Night himself.

[LordSimen]

You don't get what I am trying to say. None of those directors I mentioned have any artistic merit, or are artists. They just make the movies because in their own little head they find them to be masterpieces. They don't introduce new shots, or do any good writing, have good set design, or write good screenplays. They just are in Hollywood because of the money and the power play among studios to keep putting the same crap in theathers. The ones we do mention, do have artistic merit, and that is why we discuss sthem numorous times. not because they suck, but because they have lasting power.

I disagree. And I'm not going to argue with you about it. So don't try.


You have low standards for filmmakers like that when you call them artists

Being an artist doesn't necessarily mean you are good. Good and bad have no bearing on the definition of an artist.

My standard is simply that all filmmakers are artists. Simple as that.

[The Postmaster General]

...I said I was trying.
I don't know if I rubbed you the wrong way or anything by grouping you together with my earlier complaint, but everything I'm saying on the matter is in good cheer now. Since the mild dust has cleared away and I'm over my complaint, I feel kind of stupid for bringing it up in the first place, so I'm covering ground by playing with myself (in the non-gross non-masturbatory self-deprication way). You shouldn't have your serious face on here. I'm really just joking around about it now. This kind of stuff: :D ;) :cool:[/COLOR]

I think you're taking me more seriously than I'm taking you. For reasons unrelated to this post, I sometimes tend to post in an essay style format. It's not like I'm being serious. I was trying to be funny earlier and that didn't work, so I was like okay, no funny captions. I don't know though, I'm having a hard time believing I didn't post anything in there that didn't sound like I was trying to be funny. They're too fucking long for me to go back and check, so I'll just take my word for it. Generally, I am doing several things in the process of posting, and at times will leave and come back multiple times - that might also add to that essay style format...

I'm just not sure why everything has to be about someone being stupid or what-not. That's what I'm kind of on about. At this point all of it would be better served over PMs or whatever.


As far as aruging semantics, it was clear at the start of the thread that people were using "egotistical" negatively, so they were making it out to be a bad thing. Likewise, when people make fun of QT's ego, they are usually doing it with the most negatively-associated definition of ego. I think the same thing happened with M. Night. Anything else is intellectualizing the point past the context.
Bubbastrangelove and lordsimen and thedudeman69 have gone off on their own interesting conversation that I can't think of anyway to elaborate on, so I'll just making a summation here about my thoughts concerning M. Night posts earlier in the thread: I do think Lady was a passion project for him, like The Fall is for tarsem (if anyone knows that example), whereas is both movies fail critically, the artist will brush those critics off and continue to adore their cinema child.
That feels genuine to me. But hollywood is almost allergic to self-congratulations, so I'm not surprised M. Night is hit for being egotistical in the negative way. Hell, didn't everyone also freaked out when james cameron said "I'm the king of the world!"? And what kind of mild remark is that in the heat of an oscar-winning moment.

Edit:...although I think cameron is supposed to be an admitted bighead, so maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot with that one. Damn.

What isn't clear is that the reason M. Night's ego is made into such a big issue in this thread is for the exact same reason you just summarized. Here's a hint: Look at the title of the thread!

It's just a natural reaction. Maybe not necessarily a fair one, but it is what it is. The point so many of us have been trying to make is that M. Night wears his ego on his sleeve.




I'm not sure I'd describe all artistic conceits as merely gimmicks. I'd probably use different words such as concepts or ideas to describe artistic conceits. Then again, I've never been a fan of the word gimmick mostly due to it's negative connotation and the fact that I've never found anything wrong with what people tend to refer to as "gimmicks."

Yeah, but what would you call it instead of a gimmick? A conceit?

I'm not so sure I'd say the conceits, the thoughts, the concepts or the ideas M. Night Shyamalan injects into his films are ones that I would consider acts of egoism. They all seem to be put into his projects because they serve the projects themselves. There isn't really any indication, at least to me, that he puts them in to make himself look good but rather make his project the best project it could possibly be.

Which, to me, is the difference between passion and ego. A decision made out of ego would be designed for the sole purpose of ones self and not for the purpose of art. On the other hand, a decision made out of passion in regards to art would be done to make the piece as best as it can be.

I lot of this is just based on a mental state, or even persona, which M. Night seems to possess. It isn't always adherent to the film, such as the example of his fascination with the R-rating. While they may be put there to serve the project themselves, M. Night goes into a ego-driven mode where he tells you the world according to M. Night. He tells you what his intentions are and so forth. A less ego-driven person wouldn't tell you their pretenses.

Apatow may have a pretense to make the next breakfast club, but his ego is a lessor talking point because he doesn't make it a big talking point. He doesn't say, "What you are going to see is my attempt to make the Breakfast Club." -- With Pineapple Express, he was just like "The next one will be an action film." --- That's a pretense, but we don't go into the details of his ego, such as "I wanted to make an action movie that was about stoners because it was time that the world had that kind of movie."

That's the difference. Now, there's certain aspects of Apatow's ego that are indirectly showing up in his films, such as his circle of friends, and what he digs, but it does serve the purpose of a film. M. Night telling us why it's important that the movie is rated-R serves no purpose for the film. I know, I know, we are all saying it's marketing, but that may be being a bit fair. This is the guy who left a studio to make a movie and now he can't tell a marketing firm, I'd rather not say that.

In choosing to cast himself in the part he did in Lady in the Water, while on the surface it may seem like he did it to make himself seem like a savior, I do not believe that was the actual reason the choice was made. He cast himself, a writer, in the part of a writer merely because a writer will know all that much more how a writer thinks and acts. The only difference between that and Jon Favreau casting Robert Downey Jr., a known lady's man with a quirky sense of humor and a history of substance abuse, as a known lady's man with a quirky sense of humor and history of alcoholism, is that in Jon Favreau's case he wasn't casting himself. And to me, that difference is inconsequential because casting someone for traits they already have, including casting yourself, is usually a choice made to serve the project.

I felt with Lady in the Water the issue was more with no one seeming to think he's a good actor.

But what's interesting is that they tend to not use the words ego, pretension or conceit unless they are specifically using them as criticism. You will be hard pressed to find a review written praising a film for it's egotistical, pretentious and conceited screenplay.

But I do find what you're saying fascinating because you are completely correct that they can be qualities that can be thought of as positive or negative. I never really thought of ego, pretension or conceit in that light. I'm so used to them being used as negative terms I've never thought of them from the other side before.

You're right. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe it's time for these directors to take those words back and take the sting out of them like some members of the African-American culture did with that one word.

The thing about Judd, though, is I'd definitely say he's the kind of personality who even if he did think highly of the project he was working on would probably still act modest and not readily say whether or not the piece is going to be great or not in public. In a way you mentioned this by saying he's not presenting it to us, or making a point about it. But is there really any difference between thinking it and saying it?

I'm not quite sure this works, but, isn't a racist still a racist even if he never speaks of his racist thoughts?

Well, that's it. If you make a movie and tell everyone you are a racist and that's why you made the movie, you've just put your ego out there and made a point of it. Apatow has an ego, we all do. There's a difference between having an ego and using your ego as a pretense to your film. The later usually brands one egotistical. Tarantino does that, and people make fun of his ego.


I'm quite sure I understand what you mean here. But if you state that your goal is to make the best film you can, aren't you being self aware then too? I'm not quite sure I understand how stating that's any different from saying your film's going to great. Is it because saying your film is going to be great is a definitive, decisive answer and the other is open to interpretation?

If you have a feeling that your film is going to be great, something special, I don't necessarily think of that as being self aware... That's just being passionate.

Passion is being invested and appreciating your work.

Being self-aware is realizing you may have done something great or special.

You can have a pretense that what you've done is great, but you can also do something great without any pretense. The Panama Canal is considered by some as a modern wonder of World. When it was being built, all anyone wanted was a quicker route. Sure everyone wanted to do a good job, but no one realized what would become of it and how it would be regarded. M. Night, as an engineer on that project, may have said, "It will be as if Moses has parted the waters!"


They maybe marketing his ego, but it is an ego entirely created by the marketing team itself. It doesn't actually exist once you take away the marketing team's strategy and sit down and interview M. Night himself.

Maybe his persona, but M. Night wears his ego on his sleeve.

[jaw2929]

The only movie I've not given 2 shits about from M. Night would be The Village.... Even Signs was alright, along with 6th Sense. I LOVED Unbreakable and Lady in the Water.... The Happening looks decent, I think I'll check it out, despite it's somewhat shitty marketing.