I remember liking “Sixth Sense”, but every movie he’s done since then has gotten successively worse. Starting with “Signs”, his heavy-handed signature direction style is severely distracting. I can just picture him behind the camera talking to the actors…
“Just think of the suspense we can build up in two hours of wooden acting - imagine that you’re drugged up on painkillers and you have to talk in a complete monotone. Won’t that be suspenseful?”
Oooh, you’re soo spoooky. Especially when there’s no payoff. I love a nice buildup, and there are occasional ‘make-you-jump’ moments in his movies, but something with his pacing and writing is wrong. I do like his story ideas, but he just doesn’t seem to be able to execute them without feeling he has to be all super-styley. The endings are such a let down when the “suspense” plateaus 15 minutes into the movie. Really, IMO, suspense is more effective when you can continue to build it, and it should only build after there’s been an attempt to establish background and character, otherwise no one’s going to care much about your story. Everyone will be too busy trying to not be distracted by the odd mannerisms you force your actors to affect.
Shyamalan woud do himself a big favor by emulating Hitchcock. When Hitchcock became known for appearing in the background of all his films, he began showing up early to keep people from peering around trying to catch him. Shyamalan is known for the surprise twist. If he leaves it out, his fan base is pissed. If he puts it in, people spend the whole movie trying to figure it out.
He needs to do the reveal as early as possible, let the audience know what’s happening, but conceal it from his characters. I know I’d enjoy his films more if I didn’t have that whole twist to have to figure out.
This film is based on a bedtime story he made up for his little kids.
Remember how Lucas said the Star Wars prequeals were all for his little kids?
I also remember how Hook was for the then little kids of Spielberg and Williams.
Doing films for your kids = ass sucking.
There’s already another thread where wankers who don’t have a fraction of the talent and intelligence and vision of Shyamalan are whining about how much they hate him. So you had to start another one? Loser.
Um… A boycott is a movement to not buy or use a specific product or service in order to cause political or social change. If you don’t buy Coke because of their labor practices in Latin America, that’s a boycott. If you don’t buy Coke because you prefer Pepsi, that’s not a boycott. It’s a form of protest, not a statement of taste.
So, what you’re asking, really, is who won’t be seeing Lady in the Water. I’m sure plenty of people won’t. For reasons ranging from not liking scary movies to not wanting to pay multiplex prices.
Not me, though, I’m really looking forward to it. It’s Shamalan and Paul Giamatti. With Bryce Howard, who rocked in the Village. This is going to be pretty and atmospheric, if nothing else.
Before this thread is closed or moved to the pit let me just say that I’ve never understood the need to excoriate art that you don’t like. Isn’t there enough stuff that you do like to talk about? Why pick fights with those who do like it?
Negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves.
Equipoise, you’ve been warned numerous times in the past about insulting posters in non-Pit threads (more often than not, Cafe Society threads); if you can’t keep control of your temper, you chance suspension and, eventually, a permanent loss of your posting privileges.
You get a warning, too, born too late. Cafe Society is meant for the discussion of the arts, not attacks on other posters. If someone insults you, report the post and let a mod handle it. Responding in kind will just get you a warning.
Let’s return to the thread. Reasonable people can and should be able to differ on whether a certain director and/or his movies are any good without restorting to insults.
If you’d done the slightest amount of homework, you would have seen that there was a long thread just a few days ago on this very topic. I don’t feel the need to be polite to someone who can’t even do a simple search but just HAS to open a thread to insult a filmmaker who’s not even forcing you to watch any of his movies. Don’t like MSN? DON’T GO SEE HIS MOVIES. Sheesh, wasn’t that simple?
I guess I don’t get how it’s ok for a poster to call someone who’s not present an insulting name, but if they’re for sure reading, it’s not ok. btl calls Shyamalan a “wanker” in the Subject Line and it’s perfectly fine, but I get called on calling him a wanker right back? In any case, I apologise and will try to suffer fools more gladly in the future.
For what it’s worth, I did do a search. However, it was a search in thread titles for “Shyamalan” and not “Shamalayan” as was titled in the other thread.
It’s funny that you seem this think this is clever.
Anyway, I’ll be taking a pass on “Lady innawatta”, There’s only so much manufactured “dread” I can tolerate in a film.
An excerpt from a book about Shama lama ding dong is in this week’s EW.
God, it seems unflattering- when Disney execs don’t “get” his sixth treatment for Lady in the Water, he goes all teenage boy and starts crying? In a restaurant? Because he loves them, but now they are rejecting him because they are confused by his script treatment? His cringing whine about trying to cast Paul Giamatti was pretty creepy too.
Dude, grow up. Usually when someone has that much of their self-worth tied up in their work, it’s a bad thing.
I am unimpressed by him. I don’t see any great earth-shattering genius or insight in his work thus far. I do see a child-man who is way too fragile for the movie business, though.
As far as I’m aware, Shymalan is not a poster here; as it is, he’s a public figure whose works and self are open to criticism, even if some of the criticism comes in the form of an ad hominem. Being insulted–just as much as being praised or being ignored–comes as part of the package of producing artistic works.
At any rate, one of the intended goals of not allowing personal insults outside the Pit is that they tend to derail the discussion. We’re not worried about feelings being hurt; we want the dicussion to move along without having to sort through posts full of name-calling and other tripe that add nothing to the debate. Regardless of whether you either understand or agree with the rule, though, you’ll still need to follow it. If you want a discussion about the merits of the rule, please start a thread in the Pit; this thread has been hijacked enough.
Calling him a “fool” kinda belies the whole apology thing; it’s also another insult. This is your second warning in the same thread. I suggest at this point that you move on to other threads where you won’t feel the temptation to insult the other posters.
This may be the millionth time that the reliable ol’ “nobody’s forcing you to watch/listen/go” line of reasoning has been used on this message board. And, for the millionth time, it’s in response to someone who never actually claimed that he was forced to do anything in the first place. I have never understood this. Are you arguing that people are only allowed to complain about things that they’re forced to do? I mean, here you are in a thread no one forced you to read, making a big deal.
