Wait, so can I call public figures nasty names outside of the Pit???
Finally, I can start my “Brad Pitt has a FAT C**K” thread!
(no, not really)
How is that nasty? It sounds somewhat positive and useful.
Not for my purposes, mind you…
Why should we only discuss things we like? Why not things we don’t like? I don’t get it.
And who is Moriarty, btw?
Let me talk to them, Brainglutton. I thintherely doubt they’ll thnigger when Bigguth Dickuth addrethes them!
A good understanding of the method of artistic expression must cover both what works, and what does not work. A poorly executed work of art can often teach you more about art than a masterpiece, in that it can at once show you what you need to do to achieve your effect, and give you an object lesson in how not to do it. The heightened passion with which some people engage in this exercise is not without its purpose, either. Stronger language indicates stronger disapproval, after all. “Shyamalan is a wanker” communicates a degree of disagreement with his efforts much greater than, “Shyamalan does not make very good movies.” Although, needless to say, neither statement serves any useful purpose without an attempt to explain how one arrived at that conclusion. But that works both ways: “That movie kicked ass!” is no more useful or interesting a statement than “That movie sucked!” absent additional details offered in support of the statement.
Also, making fun of stupid movies is really fun.
I do agree with you in that there is no need to get in a fight about it. But attacking a movie is not the same as getting in a fight about a movie. What I’ve never understood is why so many people take criticism of something they like so personally. Making fun of Shyamalan’s movies is not at all the same thing as making fun of Shyamalan’s fans. There is, I think, a general trend in our society towards being unable to seperate what one likes from who one is. Usually, when someone bristles at the idea that someone else doesn’t like something they treasure, the impression I get is of a person who does not have a strong sense of self, and relies heavily on outside forces to define themselves. Thus, an attack on something they enjoy becomes an attack on their own worth as a person.
But I digress.
Hauling this post back around to the OP: I intend to see Shyamalan’s new movie. His sense of composition and movement with a scene is amazing. Even when his films fail on the narrative level, such as The Village and, to a lesser extent, Signs, they’re such a wonder just to look at that I don’t really mind. I also think he can coax some extrordinary performances out of his actors, which is always worth watching, even when those actions do not amount to very much at the end. I do admit that I’ve been getting diminishing returns for Shyamalan. Each film disappoints a bit more than the previous, and I decided after The Village that if he doesn’t turn it around in his next film, I was going to have to give up on him altogether.
He was quoting Sgt. Oddball, Donald Sutherland’s misplaced hippie/tank commander character from Kelly’s Heroes
Sure, but that’s not what happened here. This was a personal attack on Shamalyan. Allowable since he’s a public figure, but not at all good criticism. It didn’t invite discussion, it invited others to join a “boycott”. It invited exactly the level of discussion that it got from Equipose.
And while I agree that “this rocked” isn’t any more useful, and call me a naieve hippy (and 10 Menocchio Fun Bucks to Corporate Hippy for getting the reference), but I tend to think that useless positivity is better than useless negativity. Positivity doesn’t invite as vitriolic a rebuttal. And well, don’t we have enough to complain about?
What I want to know is how my man M. Night has the balls to put his frickin’ name in front of each of his movies. The man has had about 1 1/2 hits in his career. Steven Speilberg has sold about a billion more tickets than M. Night can ever dream of selling, and he doesn’t do this ego-trip.
I liked most of Night’s films. Guess I have pedestrian tastes.
The Village kind of blew, but but I liked the others. Unbreakable was a bit slow and plodding, but enjoyable nonetheless, I thought.
I’m going to assume you have just wiped any memory of Shark Boy and Lava Girl (in 3-D!) from your brain. 
Don’t intend to “boycott” it, but certainly don’t intend to see it. And it’s because M. Night’s name is on the front.
I liked “Sixth Sense”. It still freaks me out in places. But the three movies since? Progressively worse, like born too late said.
EW has interviewed M. Night at least once (pardon me for not looking up which specific article, but there’s a lot of listings); in the interview, he comes across as a bit, er, arrogant? It truly seemed over the top for someone who had (imho) one good film and three bad ones.
I’ll see it. I keep going to Shyamalan’s movies because they’re so close to being astounding; the man is so close to being great. And he keeps just missing it. But he’s still young, and still developing his skills, and I keep going hoping one of these times he’ll really get it right.
I’m planning to see it. Despite the flaws in his movies, I have enjoyed each one for various reasons. And the casting in this one looks good–I love Giamatti, and Bryce Howard is someone I’m looking forward to seeing more of. Practice makes perfect, as my piano teacher used to remind me, and I’m glad Shyamalan keeps practicing.