Here's what's wrong with M. Night Shyamalan:

[WF Tomba]

He's a very good director and an inventive storyteller who ruins his own movies by insisting on writing them. He could be making great movies if he wrote the basic story, hired someone else to write the script, and then filmed it himself. Instead, he wastes his talent.

James Cameron is exactly the same way.

Am I right?

[kasuo]

Yeah, he has a good eye, especially moreso when with a good Director of Photography.

[Simplicio]

James Cameron is exactly the same way.

Eh? James Cameron script writing isn't terrible (hell, the Terminator movies are probably amongst the most quoted films of all time, granted that's as much due to Ahnold's delivery as the script). Most of his movies aren't particularly dialogue intensive anyways. In anycase, his script writing his own movies seems to be working out pretty well for him, which is more then we can say for MNS, who I agree is a decent director, but really needs to stop trying to write his own movies.

ETA: and glancing at wikipedia, Cameron shares writing credit on most of his later films, so he apparently does get some help from others.

[WF Tomba]

Eh? James Cameron script writing isn't terrible (hell, the Terminator movies are probably amongst the most quoted films of all time, granted that's as much due to Ahnold's delivery as the script). Most of his movies aren't particularly dialogue intensive anyways. In anycase, his script writing his own movies seems to be working out pretty well for him, which is more then we can say for MNS, who I agree is a decent director, but really needs to stop trying to write his own movies.

ETA: and glancing at wikipedia, Cameron shares writing credit on most of his later films, so he apparently does get some help from others.
Cameron is not as bad a writer as Shyamalan, but to me the dialogue in his films has always seemed mediocre, not very interesting, and sometimes silly. I'm particularly thinking of Titanic and The Abyss here. And the famous lines from the Terminator movies would indeed have been dumb if Schwarzenegger hadn't been saying them.

[Sage Rat]

Cameron is not as bad a writer as Shyamalan, but to me the dialogue in his films has always seemed mediocre, not very interesting, and sometimes silly. I'm particularly thinking of Titanic and The Abyss here. And the famous lines from the Terminator movies would indeed have been dumb if Schwarzenegger hadn't been saying them.
Outside of The Abyss, Cameron has never had a movie flop, and The Abyss had its funding cut mid-production.

Like his writing or not, it doesn't appear to keep the viewers away (unlike with Shyamalan)

[WF Tomba]

Outside of The Abyss, Cameron has never had a movie flop, and The Abyss had its funding cut mid-production.

Like his writing or not, it doesn't appear to keep the viewers away (unlike with Shyamalan)
True. But I wasn't talking about box office results in my OP. I was talking about the quality of the movies.

[WF Tomba]

I retract the last post and I will now try to restate it less snottily:

I concede that James Cameron has had a lot of success with his movies and that lots of people like them. Personally, I still think they are hobbled by weak writing.

[friedo]

I concede that James Cameron has had a lot of success with his movies and that lots of people like them. Personally, I still think they are hobbled by weak writing.

Terminator 2 is widely studied in screenwriting classes as one of the best Hollywood action scripts of all time. Yeah, the dialogue is a little bit hokey in places (it's a Terminator movie, after all) but in terms of plot structure, it's right up there with Die Hard in its ability to move the plot smoothly forward in every scene, with not a bit of extraneous information, distracting exposition or wasted time.

ETA: Compare Lady in the Water for the exact opposite experience.

[WF Tomba]

Terminator 2 is widely studied in screenwriting classes as one of the best Hollywood action scripts of all time. Yeah, the dialogue is a little bit hokey in places (it's a Terminator movie, after all) but in terms of plot structure, it's right up there with Die Hard in its ability to move the plot smoothly forward in every scene, with not a bit of extraneous information, distracting exposition or wasted time.

ETA: Compare Lady in the Water for the exact opposite experience.
Hmm. You have a point there. Screenwriting is not all about dialogue. M. Night Shyamalan is terrible at figuring out what parts of the story to dwell on and what parts to cut out; James Cameron does seem to be good at that.

But dialogue is very important to me. The Terminator movies don't need to have good dialogue because they are so action-driven, but I spent the whole of Titanic waiting for someone to say something worth remembering, and it never happened. And that movie, while well-paced, had a major flaw in the plot structure: the framing device of the elderly Rose makes it obvious from the beginning that Jack is going to die, robbing the story of all suspense.

[Bryan Ekers]

Terminator 2 is widely studied in screenwriting classes as one of the best Hollywood action scripts of all time. Yeah, the dialogue is a little bit hokey in places (it's a Terminator movie, after all) but in terms of plot structure, it's right up there with Die Hard in its ability to move the plot smoothly forward in every scene, with not a bit of extraneous information, distracting exposition or wasted time.

I'd have to credit the editor for some of that. The extended version of T2 has a lot of interesting stuff, but none of the additional scenes are necessary to the plot and greatly undermine the movie's pacing.

[friedo]

I hated Titanic for the exact same reasons. That movie made me almost as mad as The English Patient in terms of its overwrought, far-too-long vapidity.

[Cervaise]

Screenwriting is not all about dialogue.Screenwriting is 98% structure and 2% dialogue.

Titanic is an excellent screenplay with shitty dialogue. Anyone who understands how movies are made will recognize this.

[pepperlandgirl]

Hmm. You have a point there. Screenwriting is not all about dialogue. M. Night Shyamalan is terrible at figuring out what parts of the story to dwell on and what parts to cut out; James Cameron does seem to be good at that.

But dialogue is very important to me. The Terminator movies don't need to have good dialogue because they are so action-driven, but I spent the whole of Titanic waiting for someone to say something worth remembering, and it never happened. And that movie, while well-paced, had a major flaw in the plot structure: the framing device of the elderly Rose makes it obvious from the beginning that Jack is going to die, robbing the story of all suspense.

I'd say the fact that it's about the freaking Titanic is what ruined all the suspense.

Shymalan reminds me much, much more of George Lucas. At least Cameron makes films that are watchable. Lucas is another idea man who should have the sense to put the ideas in capable hands (writing and directing) while he fucks around with his special effects.

[WF Tomba]

I hated Titanic for the exact same reasons. That movie made me almost as mad as The English Patient in terms of its overwrought, far-too-long vapidity.
I have to admit that I did not exactly hate Titanic at first. I was frustrated by its dumbness, but being a lad of fourteen I was ultimately won over by the magical influence of Ms. Winslet's breasts, and felt moved by the end of the movie. The next morning I said to myself, "What was that shit?"

I didn't see The Abyss till years later, and cringed when I realized that Cameron had worked in the very same kind of "non-sexual" boob shot, only in a much more clumsy and amateurish way. I mean, everyone probably has a cheesy little fetish like that, but that's the bit you're supposed to cut out of the script when you're about two-thirds of the way through writing it.

[MovieMogul]

Terminator 2 is widely studied in screenwriting classes as one of the best Hollywood action scripts of all time. Yeah, the dialogue is a little bit hokey in places (it's a Terminator movie, after all) but in terms of plot structure, it's right up there with Die Hard in its ability to move the plot smoothly forward in every scene, with not a bit of extraneous information, distracting exposition or wasted time.I couldn't disagree more. The first Terminator? Absolutely. But T2 has a ton of bloat, with cutesy, kinder-gentler Arnie scenes and the whole hand-wringing Nuclear Anxieties that they harp on to the point of distraction. The first film is perfect in every way, but the sequel is muddled, overlong, and kneejerk (and that's ignoring the monumentally stupid and obvious plothole at the end of the film).

[Skara_Brae]

Has Shyamalan ever made a movie where he didn't create the basic story? I know he is doing the Avatar movies - is he writing the scripts for these?

[cmyk]

Totally agree with the OP, and it's something I was just talking about with my best friend a couple days ago. Except we're both Cameron fans :P

IMO:

M. Night is notable for:
Twist endings that worked amazingly well once, but not so much after.
Good at creating a novel story conceit, but most of the time unsuccessful in the execution.
Aping The Twilight Zone.
Amazing directing skills.
Great with dialogue.
Terrible with plot.
Fantastic with actors, especially children.
Good and unfolding a story, but terrible at writing them.
Full of contrivances (re Signs, LITW, The Village...)
Top notch cinematography; great editing.
Subtle ambience, muted and understated.
Firm believer in "less is more" when it comes to effects and creating fear; sometimes to a fault.

Ultimately, what undoes him is his arrogance in thinking he's a good writer, and not taking ANY constructive criticism. If he insists on writing his own stories, at least, get a good editor, or team up with a great writer. He can't tell when his ideas are corny and overblown. I'd compare him more to Lucas here.

James Cameron is notable for:
Amazing visual effects.
Pushing technology in the film industry.
Interesting science fiction concepts, most really good, some kinda bad.
Epic screenwriting.
Mixed bag on dialogue.
Well thought out plots.
Great scores.
His passion for awe and the unexplored is usually very apparent in his films.
Fucking cyborgs.
Not all that great with actors (Eddie Furlong), but thankfully, he's been able to just let the good actors he does cast to do their thing (Sigourney, Ed Harris, et al). Not sure where Arnold fits in here?
Over-the-top action and set pieces, for better or worse.
Decent writing, and some novel ideas.
Superb art direction/visuals (and a lot of it has come from him, and his paintings).
Iconic characters.
The catchphrases seem to write themselves.
Bombastic atmosphere, highly polished and glossy.
Bold, unafraid, and risky filmmaker in all the right places.

I believe Cameron is in a completely different league as a filmmaker than M. Night. Cameron has more muscle, overall talent and is a collaborator. He's got unique vision, and makes movies from his passions in life. And it shows. If there's something unprecedented he wants to achieve, then he invents it. He makes a lot of pop-corn fare, to be sure, but most often the pop-corn goes down much deeper than you think. His movies have re-watch value; M. Night's -- not so much. Every filmmaker takes some missteps, and even Cameron's perceived missteps aren't all that bad compared to M. Night's. I'd take The Abyss or True Lies over Signs or Lady in the Water (haven't seen The Happening :rolleyes: yet) any day.

[WF Tomba]

Screenwriting is 98% structure and 2% dialogue.
On the contrary, I contend that it is 97% structure and 3% dialogue! :)

Seriously, though, do you mean that the structure is actually on the order of forty-nine times more important to the effectiveness of the film than the dialogue? I strongly disagree. Shitty dialogue can seriously weaken a movie. Think how much cooler The Matrix could have been if they'd just cut out that ridiculous nonsense "explanation" of why the machines were imprisoning the humans, or that painfully stupid line that referenced The Wizard of Oz.

[cmyk]

M. Night, I'm sure, also thinks of himself as a modern day Hitchcock.

[CalMeacham]

Having somebody else write the script wouldn't help if Shyamalan still wrote the story. In fact, I like his scripts. I think he's a helluva director, who builds mood wonderfully, sets up his shots well, and unfolds a story with interesting characters. It's just that, since The Sixth Sense (or maybe Unbreakable, to cut him some slack), his stories end in some stupid "twist" that make me want to throw something at the screen.

It's terrible for me to invest that much interest (and him that much effort) in something with an incredibly stupid payoff.




It's NOT because Twists Are Bad, or because I Expect A Twist From HIm, or something equaly brainless. There are oplenty of writers who made a damed living out of Stories With Twists. O. Henry. Fredric Brown. Frederick Forsyth's early stuff. I never felt cheated because there was a twist, or because i guessed the twist, or anything like that. It's that Shyamalan writes STUPID twists.

He should use someone else's story as a basis. He can then write his own script and everything. Just as long as it isn't another Signs or The Village.

[vivalostwages]

M's dialogue really is on the nose, clunky, or unrealistic. It deters tremendously from the films.

[RickJay]

Screenwriting is 98% structure and 2% dialogue.

Titanic is an excellent screenplay with shitty dialogue. Anyone who understands how movies are made will recognize this.
Amen, amen, amen.

The idea that screenwriting=dialogue is extremely implanted in the public consciousness, for some reason, but screenwriting is very much NOT about dialogue.

Think how much cooler The Matrix could have been if they'd just cut out that ridiculous nonsense "explanation" of why the machines were imprisoning the humans, or that painfully stupid line that referenced The Wizard of Oz.
First of all, the problem with the explanation of why the machines are imprisoning the humans is not really a problem with the WORDS. The scene would have been pretty weak no matter what Morpheus's explanation was. Consider this; he might have been lying. Nothing that happens in the subsequent films proves him right; we don't really know for sure what the machines' motivations for keeping humans imprisoned are. Morpheus has his own agenda, and in any case might not know himself.

But even if you assume he's lying, it's not a great scene, because it's just a tiny bit too wordy. The movie slows down considerably in that part, and they needed to cut a few seconds here and there. That dialogue could have gone, or an explanation thrown in somewhere else.

Almost ALL the dialogue in The Matrix is stupid. It's psychobabble mumbo jumbo from the first word to the last. But the screenplay works.

For an opposite example, consider "Serenity." There's a few moments of very bad dialogue, but a lot of exceptionally good lines, really great dialogue. Almost every character, even bit characters, gets a good line in now and then. But the screenplay (IMHO, YMMV) is quite dull overall. It's too cliche, too predictable, too slow, and just an absolutely by-the-numbers generic space opera/technogeek wankfest. I remember lots of good dialogue wrapped into a really boring movie. If I wanted to hear witticisms and not worry about story, I'd go see a comedian.

[WF Tomba]

Amen, amen, amen.

The idea that screenwriting=dialogue is extremely implanted in the public consciousness, for some reason, but screenwriting is very much NOT about dialogue.
Then what part of the filmmaking effort is about dialogue? Dialogue is extremely important, and it is a component of screenwriting, is it not?
Almost ALL the dialogue in The Matrix is stupid. It's psychobabble mumbo jumbo from the first word to the last. But the screenplay works.
Only because most of the dialogue is very brief. When a movie bogs down every time the characters utter three sentences in a row, it's usually because the dialogue is badly written.

[Cat Whisperer]

I welcome this thread, because after watching "The Happening" recently, I can't put my finger on why M. Night's movies aren't better than they are. He obviously can make incredible movies; I don't know why his recent movies have been one or two doors down from great. "The Happening" wasn't even really good; it was deeply flawed in many ways (and I LOVE post-apocalyptic stuff, and am quite forgiving of a good frolic in the genre).

ETA: I like the comparison to George Lucas, because he's a prime example of a brilliant guy who needs some help that he isn't willing to take.

[Cervaise]

Then what part of the filmmaking effort is about dialogue? Dialogue is extremely important, and it is a component of screenwriting, is it not?

Only because most of the dialogue is very brief. When a movie bogs down every time the characters utter three sentences in a row, it's usually because the dialogue is badly written.I recommend that you either study film more in depth, or stop saying things like this that reveal your lack of knowledge. ;)

As I said, attention to dialogue is properly around 2% of the screenwriter's effort. If you go back in filmmaking history, you can frequently find credits (I think a couple of Hitchcock movies have this) that say "script by so-and-so, dialogues by such-and-such." In film, storytelling is structure. The dialogue is just a thin layer of icing.

Frequently, dialogue is invented on the set by the actors. Look at your typical Judd Apatow movie; he creates characters and a storyline represented by a series of scenes in which various pieces of knowledge are imparted to the audience and events occur to modify the characters' reality. The actual words are just a flavoring component in the overall stew, and they are frequently made up on the set by the actors.

But while the actors may be making up their dialogue, they are not making up the story. They do not get to say to the writer/director, "I don't think I would have an affair with this character, I would have an affair with that character." The most they will contribute is, "When I begin the affair with this character, I would say this instead of that." The fact of the affair as a plot point is what's in the script. The words spoken to initiate that plot point are superficial and, while potentially amusing, essentially insignificant in the larger scheme.

The smart and/or experienced writer knows this, and doesn't expend much effort on dialogue that will be rewritten on the fly anyway. Scripted dialogue is frequently serviceable at best as a result. (Exceptions are for writers who are known primarily for their dialogue, such as David Mamet or Kevin Smith. And the weakness of the latter, in particular, is that his storytelling structures are rudimentary and amateurish. He gets by on the wit and charm of his characters, not his stories.)

Returning to the OP, Shyamalan's best movie, structurally, is probably Unbreakable. It tells a huge story, with tons of backstory, with great simplicity and economy. The tone is cold and removed, which is why lots of people don't enjoy it; the basic premise is also fairly ridiculous, which is why lots of other people don't enjoy it. ;) But as a constructed story, it's really marvelously done.

Signs, by contrast, is weak, because it's highly linear, and most critically built around two central revelations, one of which turns out to be irrelevant and dismissable, the other of which turns out to be pedestrian and laughable. The movie succeeds, insofar as it does, because of the strength of the performances and the richness of its atmosphere. But at the screenplay level, it's pretty bad.

[WF Tomba]

I recommend that you either study film more in depth, or stop saying things like this that reveal your lack of knowledge. ;)
Don't patronize me.
As I said, attention to dialogue is properly around 2% of the screenwriter's effort. If you go back in filmmaking history, you can frequently find credits (I think a couple of Hitchcock movies have this) that say "script by so-and-so, dialogues by such-and-such." In film, storytelling is structure. The dialogue is just a thin layer of icing.
That attitude explains a lot about the movies.

I do not dispute the importance of structure. But "film people" don't consider dialogue important only because so many of them are tin-eared and incapable of writing it well.

[Cervaise]

My point is made and I'm done.

[Ludovic]

Terminator 2 is widely studied in screenwriting classes as one of the best Hollywood action scripts of all time. Yeah, the dialogue is a little bit hokey in places (it's a Terminator movie, after all) but in terms of plot structure, it's right up there with Die Hard in its ability to move the plot smoothly forward in every scene, with not a bit of extraneous information, distracting exposition or wasted time.But Hollywood scripts also have characters hang up without saying "Goodbye." Which offloads extraneous information, does not waste time, and is in fact completely idiotic.

[WF Tomba]

I'm sorry for my last post. It was stupid and rather rude.

Let me try to express myself better:

It's true that I don't know as much about films as you do, Cervaise, but my taste is just as sophisticated as yours or any other Doper's. It's pretty rude of you to dismiss my opinions by saying I just don't know anything about filmmaking.

When I say that dialogue is important, I am talking about its significance to the movie as a work. How much effort the writers put into it will vary wildly depending on the project and the writer. Trying to assign a percentage to this is a silly exercise, as I tried to suggest earlier, but even if we pretend we can do that, a writer who puts 2% of his effort into dialogue and consistently produces bad dialogue obviously needs to put more effort into it (or hand that part of the writing off to someone else). The importance of dialogue as an element of screenwriting is not measured in how hard one works at it.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that an old prejudice against screenwriting as compared to "real" literary work has resulted in a general lack of concern for good dialogue among filmmakers.

In nearly all movies, the ideas and logic that underlie the story are communicated to the audience primarily through words spoken by someone. The quality of these words should therefore be considered pretty important. If it usually isn't, that's too bad but it doesn't make me wrong.

And I am not willing to accept that any movie can be "an excellent screenplay with shitty dialogue". That's tantamount to saying that the quality of the dialogue doesn't matter.

[jovan]

In nearly all movies, the ideas and logic that underlie the story are communicated to the audience primarily through words spoken by someone. The quality of these words should therefore be considered pretty important. If it usually isn't, that's too bad but it doesn't make me wrong.
For fun, try to watch a Hollywood movie, with the sound turned off. You'll be surprised at how much you can make out of the story without the dialogue. Of course, this won't work with all movies, but in most cases movies are primarily visual and action rather than speech moves the story forward.


And I am not willing to accept that any movie can be "an excellent screenplay with shitty dialogue". That's tantamount to saying that the quality of the dialogue doesn't matter.
Look at it this way: a movie with a good story, good structure and good pacing can still be enjoyable. An example of this is of course Star Wars. The dialogue is terrible, but it's still a hugely entertaining film. On the other hand, excellent dialogue can never rescue a movie with shitty plot and structure. So, while it's a bit futile to use actual numbers, in the end, dialogue does weigh less than structure when it comes to a movie's worth.

I don't think anyone is saying that dialogue is unimportant. Star Wars is flawed for its stilted words, and some movies are really carried from good to excellent by their dialogue.

[NAF1138]

And I am not willing to accept that any movie can be "an excellent screenplay with shitty dialogue". That's tantamount to saying that the quality of the dialogue doesn't matter.

No, but any shitty element is going to be a detriment to the film as a whole. But you can have a brilliant movie without any dialogue. And how you apply dialogue to a script is a structural issue.

M Night's problem is that he doesn't know how to tell a story.

[Isamu]

Cervaise Thanks for that explanation. I’ve avoided Shyamalan movies since Signs, because I fear the worst, but I’ll get around to them one day.

However, Unbreakable is in the top 5 of my favorite movies of all time. I could never explain exactly why, but now you’ve pointed out structure as a key element, I guess that goes some way to explaining it.

Anyway, if a guy can make Unbreakable, he’s got it within him to strike gold again, it’s just a matter of time.

[Isamu]

Oh, and I wanted to add – your comment on Mammet is spot on too. After you mentioned him being all about the words, not the story I went back and thought “What was Glenngarry about?” A group of shitty salesmen have a bad day. Lol.

[pepperlandgirl]

And I am not willing to accept that any movie can be "an excellent screenplay with shitty dialogue". That's tantamount to saying that the quality of the dialogue doesn't matter.

I think for this discussion, it might be worthwhile to think of a movie with both a shitty screenplay and shitty dialogue. The epic Patrick Swayze classic Road House. It's no surprise to me that David Lee Henry, the writer behind that masterpiece, only has 4 other shitty movies to his name.

Now, Road House had a few things going for it, believe it or not. First, the Swayze. Inexplicably popular in the eighties, people apparently really enjoyed his work, and I believe he was capable of an entertaining performance, if not a good one. Second, it's a familiar story, mainly from the Westerns genre, but hey, it's familiar because it works. Third, Sam Elliot is awesome.

Road House also had some horrible dialogue. I actually like the dialogue, but only because it is highly ridiculous. "Pain don't hurt." "I thought you'd be bigger." "I used to fuck guys like you in prison." "JC Penny is coming HERE because of me!" "Be nice until it's time to not be nice." "It's my way or the highway." Believe it or not, even worse lines were actually cut from the film. "Now you can have that fire sale you wanted" and "The worst [woman] was the best time I ever had." In fact, I can't even think of a scene that benefited from anybody speaking. What wasn't trite was ridiculous (or both: "You're my regular Saturday night thing!").

But the dialogue, as laughable as it undoubtedly is, is not the problem with Road House. I know, I know. But look at the elements of the story. Corrupt Business Guy controls an entire town. Nobody can stand up to him, and if he does, they're in for a world of hurt. He treats it all like a big joke--he's affable, and that's why he's so fucking creepy. He's also accustomed to getting his own way, and so when some new hotshot crosses him in a subtle, highly stupid way (firing his nephew in a town that's big enough to find gainful employment elsewhere. Perhaps even JC Penny), he becomes petulant. Angry, he lashes out, in a series of increasingly violent meetings, until Hot Shot must make a stand because nobody else will do it.

Only, that's not what happens. If you watch the movie and really pay attention (and who wants to do that?) you'll notice that it's a series of slightly related, and yet not interlocking scenes. A few times, one scene will logically follow another. Other times, they're just interspersed without rhyme or reason. Still other times, the placement of the scenes literally violate space and time. There's no clear sense of how much time passes--except the Double Deuce gets increasingly high class. While an intelligent person can piece together what must be happening--it's not a complicated film after all--characters are often acting the way the writer thinks these sort of people must act, not because of any real motives. There aren't any real motives embedded in the script because there's no real structure. There's just some rather unlikable people doing random, violent things.

Road House could have been a solid movie if the structure of the screenplay made any sense. Sure, we'd still wince over "pain don't hurt" but, all in all, it'd be pretty easy to forgive if it was a single crime, and not part of a multitude of sins.

[Euthanasiast]

James Cameron is exactly the same way.

Am I right?

No, you're wrong.

Compared to most of his peers, Cameron is a fantastic screenwriter. Yeah, perhaps his dialog is wanting, but he certainly knows how to put a film together from the ground up, and that includes his writing.

Look at these movies that he penned the screenplays for (and then gave away or didn't film):

*Strange Days
*A Crowded Room -- AWESOME screenplay that would have made an excellent film starring John Cusack.
*The original script for the first Spiderman -- That was far superior to what Sam Raimi filmed (especially since Sam and others took Cameron's script for Spiderman and butchered it and made it weaker--It was Cameron's idea to have Peter's web slinging ability a product of biology, not technology)
*Point Break

Cameron catches a lot of hell, and I really don't get it, but M. Night Shyamalan is a genital wart on Cameron's penis, IMHO.

[Euthanasiast]

I recommend that you either study film more in depth, or stop saying things like this that reveal your lack of knowledge. ;)

As I said, attention to dialogue is properly around 2% of the screenwriter's effort. If you go back in filmmaking history, you can frequently find credits (I think a couple of Hitchcock movies have this) that say "script by so-and-so, dialogues by such-and-such." In film, storytelling is structure. The dialogue is just a thin layer of icing.

Frequently, dialogue is invented on the set by the actors. Look at your typical Judd Apatow movie; he creates characters and a storyline represented by a series of scenes in which various pieces of knowledge are imparted to the audience and events occur to modify the characters' reality. The actual words are just a flavoring component in the overall stew, and they are frequently made up on the set by the actors.

But while the actors may be making up their dialogue, they are not making up the story. They do not get to say to the writer/director, "I don't think I would have an affair with this character, I would have an affair with that character." The most they will contribute is, "When I begin the affair with this character, I would say this instead of that." The fact of the affair as a plot point is what's in the script. The words spoken to initiate that plot point are superficial and, while potentially amusing, essentially insignificant in the larger scheme.

The smart and/or experienced writer knows this, and doesn't expend much effort on dialogue that will be rewritten on the fly anyway. Scripted dialogue is frequently serviceable at best as a result. (Exceptions are for writers who are known primarily for their dialogue, such as David Mamet or Kevin Smith. And the weakness of the latter, in particular, is that his storytelling structures are rudimentary and amateurish. He gets by on the wit and charm of his characters, not his stories.)

Returning to the OP, Shyamalan's best movie, structurally, is probably Unbreakable. It tells a huge story, with tons of backstory, with great simplicity and economy. The tone is cold and removed, which is why lots of people don't enjoy it; the basic premise is also fairly ridiculous, which is why lots of other people don't enjoy it. ;) But as a constructed story, it's really marvelously done.

Signs, by contrast, is weak, because it's highly linear, and most critically built around two central revelations, one of which turns out to be irrelevant and dismissable, the other of which turns out to be pedestrian and laughable. The movie succeeds, insofar as it does, because of the strength of the performances and the richness of its atmosphere. But at the screenplay level, it's pretty bad.

I agree, Unbreakable is far and away his best film.

[smiling bandit]

I have to disagree with people here.

I think Schyamalan is a terrible director. He is extremely good at one specific part of directing, but he's distinctly awful in everything else. He is very good at creating compelling visual images which accent the "action" with an engaging and haunting power.

His sense of pacing is horrific. Most of the time during his flicks, I fnd myself begging for the next damn scene. There's endless quiet, endless slow-moving nothing. The man basically takes an hour to punctuate his sentence. I'm up for some variability in movie pacing, but he's simply always slow, everywhere. That's just as bad as never-let-up-action-stunt-spectaculars, but less exciting. Yes, the long, slow shot which focuses intently on the mood is a fine thing, but when it becomes the focus of the movie, or the film has too much fluff over a very short plot, it becomes virtually worthless.

This, IMHo, is why The Sixth Sense was good and the others much weaker.

[Windwalker]

I have to disagree with people here.

I think Schyamalan is a terrible director. He is extremely good at one specific part of directing, but he's distinctly awful in everything else. He is very good at creating compelling visual images which accent the "action" with an engaging and haunting power.

His sense of pacing is horrific. Most of the time during his flicks, I fnd myself begging for the next damn scene. There's endless quiet, endless slow-moving nothing. The man basically takes an hour to punctuate his sentence. I'm up for some variability in movie pacing, but he's simply always slow, everywhere. That's just as bad as never-let-up-action-stunt-spectaculars, but less exciting. Yes, the long, slow shot which focuses intently on the mood is a fine thing, but when it becomes the focus of the movie, or the film has too much fluff over a very short plot, it becomes virtually worthless.

This, IMHo, is why The Sixth Sense was good and the others much weaker.

I tend to agree with the others that Unbreakable was his best film, even though I can't argue against your point that the movie really, REALLY takes its time. Somehow, though, it works for me, since every scene had a sense of purpose and I could tell it was building up to something. What also helped was that the atmosphere remained taut and unblinking; despite the seemingly glacial pace, I felt a lot more tense and a greater sense of dramatic movement than I do in most action movies (where a lot of things may happen on screen, but nothing feels significantly changed despite the hero having slaughtered 18392 bad guys). The pay-off actually felt proper and earned, and overall, it was just a really good movie.

Contrast this with Signs and The Happening, where you can tell that M Night tried the same narrative arc, but was foiled by pure silliness in plot contrivances. If you're going for slow atmospheric tension, then for the love of God, don't have your characters in a chase scene with WIND. OK, I'll stop here, as otherwise, this will become yet another The Happening rant...

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I'm reading this thread with great interest. I really like watching movies, and I have some general sense of literary strengths and weaknesses, having studied English (please insert unemployability joke here). But I don't know Jack about the theory underlying movie-making.

For what it's worth, I found The Sixth Sense to be amazing because it had pitch-perfect mood, and worked as a supernatural drama, and then the twist made you go back and re-assess everything you'd just seen, and yet the movie had played by the rules. IMHO, he desperately needed to continue the excellent mood work, and let go of the freaking twist idea, because shoehorning it in as an afterthought ruined Unbreakable for me, and his constant return to the trope reeks of desperation.

Anyway, I must lean toward structural quality over dialogue, since I love me some Cameron, and have been puzzled why I just don't seem to "get" Mamet. However, it seems to me that a certain brand of comedy really does rely on well-written, well-delivered dialog, as much as good structure - off the top of my head, Mel Brooks' films, Caddyshack, Ghostbusters, and Office Space.

[NAF1138]

Oh, and I wanted to add – your comment on Mammet is spot on too. After you mentioned him being all about the words, not the story I went back and thought “What was Glenngarry about?” A group of shitty salesmen have a bad day. Lol.

Ok, this is a tiny hijack, but speaks to the same point we are hijacking on already with regard to screenplay structure so I figure it is ok.

Mamett isn't all about the words. He is all about the character and because of that his words become memorable and more important. And that is also a structural choice. It helps that he writes interesting dialogue, but he isn't actually all about the words. He is a modernist and as such writes his material in such a way that character drives story as opposed to plot driving the story.

James Cameron and I would say MNS are both more aristotilian in their storytelling technique, meaning that plot drives the story with characters taking a backseat. It is because of this that they can get away with less than stellar dialogue. But Cameron has a firm understanding of how to buid a plot, the same way Mamett has a firm understanding of how to build a character. I don't really feel that MNS has much of an understanding of either.

I will see if I can look it up, but I vividly remember reading an interview with MNS in the LA Times after Sixth Sense came out and just before Unbreakable was released where MNS said that he felt Francis Ford Copalla's Dracula was one of the best movies ever made (or something to that effect. Maybe he said it was his biggest influence.) Right there that told me that he was missing something fundamental in his understanding of film.

[Sebastienne]

Put me down as another who adores Unbreakable. I found The Sixth Sense enjoyable but nothing I'd be likely to watch again, and all the rest of Night's oeuvre is just... bleeach.

I recall from an interview (possibly a special feature on the dvd) that Unbreakable was originally going to follow a more typical superhero arc, in which everyman finds out he has powers, then uses powers to take down the big badguy, but Shyamalan found the first half of that formula much more interesting than the second (oh dear, am I over simplifying something that's actually three act? eh, whatever) and essentially said "Screw it, I'll make the movie just about him finding out he's a hero." But even as only part of a familiar story, it was just a retelling of that familiar story.

And that was a good thing.

Shyamalan is weak with both plot itself and at conveying a plot, and good at atmosphere and humanizing details. Working within the confines of "super hero origin" (and also when he was working with "ghost story") his strengths were able to shine and the audience had no problem enjoying a take on a simple story they'd already heard countless times.

But when he tries to deal with plots that are even the tiniest bit more complex (or are trying to be), the story ends up presented in a way that's dull to follow. And a bored audience will catch lapses in logic that an entertained one will happily accept as part of the ride.

Cameron is very much the opposite: fantastic at plot and pacing, but occasionally without offering much else. Which is a heck of a lot more fun.

[CalMeacham]

Shyamalan is weak with both plot itself and at conveying a plot, and good at atmosphere and humanizing details. Working within the confines of "super hero origin" (and also when he was working with "ghost story") his strengths were able to shine and the audience had no problem enjoying a take on a simple story they'd already heard countless times.

But when he tries to deal with plots that are even the tiniest bit more complex (or are trying to be), the story ends up presented in a way that's dull to follow. And a bored audience will catch lapses in logic that an entertained one will happily accept as part of the ride.


I have to disagree. I wasn't at all bored during Signs or The Village, and it wasn't trying to think of something to keep my mind at work that made me ralize the movie's superficialities and illogic that ultimately made me hate the film. That's not at all my experience, or that of anyone else I've talked to. The illogical parts leap out at you unbidden -- they don't need a bored mind to take root. And i wasn't bored, in any case. Shyamalan's flicks jst have manifest problems with plotting and details, and the twist, the payoff, which is inextricably part of the plot, is maddeningly stupid. That's the problem.

[lissener]

James Cameron was the worst writer in Hollywood until Shyamalan came along. (Although at least Cameron has a certain genius for action and suspense structure.)

[Cervaise]

Oh come on. Akiva Goldsman? Ron Bass? At least Cameron knew he wasn't going to be nominated for an Oscar and never complained about it.

[lissener]

Oh come on. Akiva Goldsman? Ron Bass? At least Cameron knew he wasn't going to be nominated for an Oscar and never complained about it.

OK, I hyperboled. I just thought Titanic was such an extraordinarily painful cringefest, and all the worst things about it were the writing. For me it was "two hours and 74 minutes" of getting punched in the gut, over and over and over, by James "I'm Writing As Bad As I Can" Cameron's dialog. I had to go see it a second time, just to pay attention to the visuals. Of which, of course, it's a nearly unparalleled masterpiece. So overall, yeah, his peerless skill at devising action scenarios balances out his worst dialog ever in the history of words.

Shyamalan has a very real talent for putting certain kinds of imagery up on the screen, but his overall writing is so terrible that the balance is waaaaaay in the negative.

[Sebastienne]

I have to disagree. I wasn't at all bored during Signs or The Village, and it wasn't trying to think of something to keep my mind at work that made me ralize the movie's superficialities and illogic that ultimately made me hate the film. That's not at all my experience, or that of anyone else I've talked to. The illogical parts leap out at you unbidden -- they don't need a bored mind to take root. And i wasn't bored, in any case. Shyamalan's flicks jst have manifest problems with plotting and details, and the twist, the payoff, which is inextricably part of the plot, is maddeningly stupid. That's the problem.

"Bored" may not be quite the right way of having phrased it, but in my personal experience, a really fun or gripping movie can throw something even stupider then "let's go to the planet made of the only thing that's poison to us without space suits" and I won't think twice until after the movie, 'cause I'll be too busy enjoying the ride. (I think Tv Tropes calls that one "fridge logic".) Heck, I can imagine the setting of The Village making for a fine fairy tale-- but when the story is presented in his disjointed "isn't this complex and deeeeeeeeeep and spooooooooooooky" way, my mind goes "no, just dumb."

So not "noticing continuity errors because I've nothing else to think of" bored, but "not entertained enough to accept the hokey parts" bored.

(I've seen Signs two or three times, and each time I was simultaneously sucked in by the aspects done well and baffled as to why I was watching. It has to get good any minute-- and yet I know it won't.)

[Cat Whisperer]

If a movie isn't doing it for me, I find myself looking at my watch. I'm not bored per se, but I'm not captivated.

[Hellestal]

Screenwriting is 98% structure and 2% dialogue.

Titanic is an excellent screenplay with shitty dialogue. Anyone who understands how movies are made will recognize this.I see your other post where you explain in more depth, but I'm still not exactly sure what this means.

Is this the average Hollywood script you're talking about? You make an exception for Kevin Smith screenplays, but it's not just his plot structure that's poor, it's his overall cinematography. Chasing Amy is one of my favorite movies, but there are some whole scenes, like the conversation at the dartboard, for which the term "visually uninspired" is the kindest possible description. They even make jokes about this in the commentary. But the dialogue is so strong, the characterization so convincing, that nothing else really matters. So how uncommon are these Kevin-Smith-like exceptions?

And if dialogue is only 2% of a screenplay, then how important is the completed (actor approved) dialogue to the finished movie? I wouldn't personally view it as anything approaching a majority of importance, but it can't just be 2%. Bad dialogue won't kill an otherwise powerful performance, but it will muck things up at least a little bit more than that.

[smiling bandit]

I think what Cervaise is saying is that Screenwriting is creating everything. You have to create a plot, describe the setting, set up the scenes which support the plot within that setting, create the characters, find ways to show who and what the characters are, then figure out whether or not this is going to be something watchable. Then, and only then, is dialogue really critical. It's definitely in there, but it's actually a relatively small item in the grand scheme of things. Cervaise is saying that Screenwriting is Directing before the cameras start rolling. Not only do you have to do all the above, but you have to find ways to explain it so that any idiot who reads the screenplay can understand it. And you have the full knowledge that the director is going to come along and likely screw things up, or totally change it, or toss in some ham-handed "social commentary" to push their pet cause, or sign an actor who is grossly wrong for the role.

Now, acting is very important there, but acting is a lot more than just dialogue. The screenplay has to get across what that character is and ideally guide the actor in figuring out everything from mannerisms to attitude. Dialogue is really the second layer of communication.

This about Star Wars: A New Hope. If you watched the movie with the dialogue removed, it would still be pretty darn comprehensible. If you just heard the full audio track, you could follow along and maybe enjoy it. Try listening to just to dialogue, though: it'd mean nothing at all.

[Bryan Ekers]

OK, I hyperboled.

YOU?!?! :eek::eek::eek:






Anyhoo, while watching Unbreakable I kinda felt like the guy who tried to a buy a comic book of Samuel L. and then got kicked out because he wasn't fully appreciating the wondrous depths of the subtle counterpoint of the underlying metaphor or something. I know I'm supposed to reverently shocked into tears and silence and emotionally moved on some profound level, but really I just wanted a good time. That movie works better if you take Bruce Willis (or at least his character's abilities) out, actually, and just make it about Samuel's obsession with a comic-book existence where people don't have to live in constant pain and justice is invariably served.

[Shakes]

One of these days I'm going to find a fellow M. Night fan.

I like they way he tries to make you think of the underlying meaning of his stories. I also find it refreshing to NOT know how a movie is going to end an hour before hand.

I think the man is an intellectual and greatly misunderstood.

[pepperlandgirl]

One of these days I'm going to find a fellow M. Night fan.

I like they way he tries to make you think of the underlying meaning of his stories. I also find it refreshing to NOT know how a movie is going to end an hour before hand.

I think the man is an intellectual and greatly misunderstood.

Really? I knew how The Sixth Sense would end about 15 minutes into it. It was a movie about a kid who could see ghosts. The Very Big Actor gets shot at point blank range. Big Actor=Dead Early=Ghost. I don't understand why this was some shocking revelation to people. I don't know how it could have been more obvious--maybe if M. Night had included a big flashing neon sign?

[Euthanasiast]

One of these days I'm going to find a fellow M. Night fan.

I like they way he tries to make you think of the underlying meaning of his stories. I also find it refreshing to NOT know how a movie is going to end an hour before hand.

I think the man is an intellectual and greatly misunderstood.


You don't read a great deal of fiction, I take it.