INSPIRED!! Critize M. Night Shamalayan... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

INSPIRED!! Critize M. Night Shamalayan...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
terronus
Jun 29, 2009 1:10:18 **Blatant text abuse**

AS A DIRECTOR.

Yep, sorry that I get angry, but if anyone mentions a plot twist, they have NO NO NO clue as to what the difference between what writing and directing is, and they just jump on the "lets hate M. Night because we cannot differentiate" bandwagon.

OK, I'm being harsh but aggravated! Respond for a good discussion!
#2
dirtyfrank
Jun 29, 2009 1:40:17 I think that many don't bother to look or care if one is writing or directing a movie. As long as a name like M. Night Shamalanadingdong is on something people will assume it sucks because he has been a part of a few bad movies.
#3
Arcane_Guyver
Jun 29, 2009 2:07:29 The guy is willing to take some risks. Few other directors would've taken the idea of 'The Happening' and try to make a big budget movie out of it.

That movie concerns me more than most, because it just didn't seem to be directed well at all - almost amateurish.

I like a few of his other movies, but he's definitely got some self-imposed hurtles to jump past, not to mention others unfairly foisted on him (said popular "with a twist!" complaint). I'm hoping he finds his way back to being a superstar director with Avatar. (Although, I will sorely miss calling him M.Night Shenanigans...).
#4
lofgren
Jun 29, 2009 3:54:26 I can tell the difference between writing and directing and I object to M. Night on both those grounds. The twist is his entire focus in both regards. He was lucky to have some amazing actors for Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, plus we didn't know the formula yet, but in the rest of his movies the performances he gets out of his actors are appropriate for a high school play. The poor pacing in those first few movies also felt deliberate, but by The Village I was seriously starting to doubt he knew any better.

I think he does know better. He just settled into a formula with both his directing and writing and he hasn't deviated from it since. A sure sign of a hack. But he obviously knows what he's doing, which at least makes him a deliberate hack – or possibly just hacking because he is overextended writing and directing at the same time. Avatar is his opportunity to leave his formula behind. Let's hope that with less of himself invested in the writing he'll have the energy and focus to improve as a director.
#5
zombie_babies
Jun 29, 2009 9:11:14 M Night? Writer? Director? An' here I thought he was just some guy who got incredibly lucky with his first project and then became an utter failure in its wake. Seriously, this guy is terrible. He was what's commonly known as 'the in-thing' for a time. People liked him because it was what was expected. Fortunately, M Night is talentless enough that this has largely stopped.
#6
rake
Jun 29, 2009 11:50:00 Unbreakable is among the coolest movies I have ever seen, and although my friends practically disowned me for saying so, I liked The Village. The Sixth Sense was also pretty good, and although I haven't seen it yet, I heard Lady in the Water was, too. The Happening was a trainwreck, yes, and I can't imagine Airbender will be any good, but I've got to stick by the guy. I give M. Night a thumbs up.
#7
powercat
Jun 29, 2009 12:16:44 "The Happening" was directed AND written by M. Night, so you can't say he wasn't responsible for that. Same with "Lady in the Water," "The Village," and "Signs."
#8
rake
Jun 29, 2009 13:01:08 Signs was cool, too. : P
#9
toastedamphibian
Jun 29, 2009 17:50:01 The Happening kind of amused me. Possibly because 10 minutes in, when I finally stoped laughing, I began to chant "It's the trees man! The trees! Their killing everyone, getting their revenge!" at which point every looked at me like I was crazy.
#10
marmalang
Jul 01, 2009 10:50:32 I think a good example is The Happening. I didn't get the sense that the characters--any of them--were really in the horrific situation that was the story was trying to describe. I didn't feel that with any of the performances. They were lackluster at best.

Think about the 28 Days Later movies--there you also have a chemical antagonist that forces extreme behavior in its victims--and in those I really believed that everyone who got the rage was fully prepared to tear themselves to pieces if they had to, just to get to another human being and draw blood. The people in The Happening seemed comparatively bored. They looked like they were as creeped out as they were sad, and while they acted as if they weren't completely in control of their own actions and a little bewildered, the opportunity was not taken to show or tell how the chemicals did what they did, which would have added some much-needed credibility.

There are also tons of shots of breezes caressing plants that were actually supposed to be scary.

These aren't the worst faults with the film though. I think the biggest problem is that he's somewhat of a weak writer. Signs is his most effective film and it's still a mess that waffles between favoring the literal story and favoring the underlying metaphor, such that even a lot of people who loved the first half were bewildered at the stupidity of the climax.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 terronus Jun 29, 2009 1:10:18	Blatant text abuse AS A DIRECTOR. Yep, sorry that I get angry, but if anyone mentions a plot twist, they have NO NO NO clue as to what the difference between what writing and directing is, and they just jump on the "lets hate M. Night because we cannot differentiate" bandwagon. OK, I'm being harsh but aggravated! Respond for a good discussion!
#2 dirtyfrank Jun 29, 2009 1:40:17	I think that many don't bother to look or care if one is writing or directing a movie. As long as a name like M. Night Shamalanadingdong is on something people will assume it sucks because he has been a part of a few bad movies.
#3 Arcane_Guyver Jun 29, 2009 2:07:29	The guy is willing to take some risks. Few other directors would've taken the idea of 'The Happening' and try to make a big budget movie out of it. That movie concerns me more than most, because it just didn't seem to be directed well at all - almost amateurish. I like a few of his other movies, but he's definitely got some self-imposed hurtles to jump past, not to mention others unfairly foisted on him (said popular "with a twist!" complaint). I'm hoping he finds his way back to being a superstar director with Avatar. (Although, I will sorely miss calling him M.Night Shenanigans...).
#4 lofgren Jun 29, 2009 3:54:26	I can tell the difference between writing and directing and I object to M. Night on both those grounds. The twist is his entire focus in both regards. He was lucky to have some amazing actors for Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, plus we didn't know the formula yet, but in the rest of his movies the performances he gets out of his actors are appropriate for a high school play. The poor pacing in those first few movies also felt deliberate, but by The Village I was seriously starting to doubt he knew any better. I think he does know better. He just settled into a formula with both his directing and writing and he hasn't deviated from it since. A sure sign of a hack. But he obviously knows what he's doing, which at least makes him a deliberate hack – or possibly just hacking because he is overextended writing and directing at the same time. Avatar is his opportunity to leave his formula behind. Let's hope that with less of himself invested in the writing he'll have the energy and focus to improve as a director.
#5 zombie_babies Jun 29, 2009 9:11:14	M Night? Writer? Director? An' here I thought he was just some guy who got incredibly lucky with his first project and then became an utter failure in its wake. Seriously, this guy is terrible. He was what's commonly known as 'the in-thing' for a time. People liked him because it was what was expected. Fortunately, M Night is talentless enough that this has largely stopped.
#6 rake Jun 29, 2009 11:50:00	Unbreakable is among the coolest movies I have ever seen, and although my friends practically disowned me for saying so, I liked The Village. The Sixth Sense was also pretty good, and although I haven't seen it yet, I heard Lady in the Water was, too. The Happening was a trainwreck, yes, and I can't imagine Airbender will be any good, but I've got to stick by the guy. I give M. Night a thumbs up.
#7 powercat Jun 29, 2009 12:16:44	"The Happening" was directed AND written by M. Night, so you can't say he wasn't responsible for that. Same with "Lady in the Water," "The Village," and "Signs."
#8 rake Jun 29, 2009 13:01:08	Signs was cool, too. : P
#9 toastedamphibian Jun 29, 2009 17:50:01	The Happening kind of amused me. Possibly because 10 minutes in, when I finally stoped laughing, I began to chant "It's the trees man! The trees! Their killing everyone, getting their revenge!" at which point every looked at me like I was crazy.
#10 marmalang Jul 01, 2009 10:50:32	I think a good example is The Happening. I didn't get the sense that the characters--any of them--were really in the horrific situation that was the story was trying to describe. I didn't feel that with any of the performances. They were lackluster at best. Think about the 28 Days Later movies--there you also have a chemical antagonist that forces extreme behavior in its victims--and in those I really believed that everyone who got the rage was fully prepared to tear themselves to pieces if they had to, just to get to another human being and draw blood. The people in The Happening seemed comparatively bored. They looked like they were as creeped out as they were sad, and while they acted as if they weren't completely in control of their own actions and a little bewildered, the opportunity was not taken to show or tell how the chemicals did what they did, which would have added some much-needed credibility. There are also tons of shots of breezes caressing plants that were actually supposed to be scary. These aren't the worst faults with the film though. I think the biggest problem is that he's somewhat of a weak writer. Signs is his most effective film and it's still a mess that waffles between favoring the literal story and favoring the underlying metaphor, such that even a lot of people who loved the first half were bewildered at the stupidity of the climax.