Dr. DVD

Including that Rosie O'Donnel clunker?

DVDho78DTS

http://imdb.com/name/nm0796117/

Director - filmography

Village, The (2004)
Signs (2002)
Unbreakable (2000)
Sixth Sense, The (1999)
Wide Awake (1998)
Praying with Anger (1992)

I haven't seen the first two but enjoyed his last three.

chente

I thought Sixth Sense was a solid film. I hated Unbreakable when I saw it in the theater. The pace was way too slow for me. I actually apologized to my friends who I talked into seeing it. I have since revisited it and now actually think it was ok. I really liked Signs. It is my favorite of the three I've seen on his. Watching it in the movie theater actually raised the hairs on the back of my neck. I thought it was very well done.

shill66

Yes, including Wide Awake. Rosie might get top billing, but she's thankfully not the focus of the movie... and the rest of the cast is great, and I like the story very much.

tanman

I really like his films. Sixth Sense didn't receive any hype at all until it was people saw it, liked it, and told everybody. That "hype" is much more deserved and not really studio created.

I'm usually understanding when people don't like films that I do but I think that people who don't like his films are overanalysing them way too much. They are very simple stories that revolve around a central idea. All of the details are meaningless. Why was the alien's weakness what it was? Because that is what he wanted, it really is just a vehicle to tie all of the conflicts of the film together.

BTW you guys really need to learn how to use SPOILER TAGS. I'm really glad I already saw his past three films.

Rival11

Did anybody see the new commerical preview last night during the Lakers game?

Didn't know anything about it before hand but it did take me by surprise:

They showed a little montage of all Night's thrillers before going into the Village footage and a new clip of something charging underground (it looked like it was underground, it was a quick shot) towards that chicks (the girl who is standing behind the tree with the big red monster on the other side) feet.

My first thought was that it was pretty cool, but then I realized, why the hell did they show clips from all of his previous movies? I take it one of two ways:

1st - "Hey this movie sucks but don't forget I did these other pretty good movies"

2nd - "I'm tellin' ya, out of all my movies, this one is the best!!"

What do you think?

Rivero

Er, so people would know what other films he has made?

Rival11

For some reason though I just don't think that's the reason.

jaeufraser

Err, then you obviously don't know much about marketing. The main attraction to this film is M Night. The director is the star. This time around, there isn't a Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson, they're selling it based on the director. It's not a special effects orgy, or a mega budget flick with enormous battles and sets. It's a M Night movie, and whether you like him or not he's proven to be a very commercial commidity and very popular on his own.

So why are they using stuff from his old movies to push this? I'd venture to say largely cause this film lacks a major star, and M Night truly is the star they're selling it on.

Seriously, for those who hate his films...you still have to understand that his movies are very popular, and definatley reach a wide audience. I happen to very much enjoy his movies, and think his ability to reach such wide audiences with his smaller scale movies says a lot about him and his talent. It's just true...M Night is a very well liked director, and the continued success of his works proves that. There's no conspiracy...they're just selling a product that has very high potential to make a lot of money.

Rival11

First off, I am an M. Night fan - what I'm not a fan of is his over the top hype (see my original post).

I agree that certain steps need to be taken to promote the film but regardless of what you say (no anger here either, it's not about that) It goes overboard...way overboard.

Sure there is no Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis in this film, but Night is one of the few directors I know of that has his name MORE than out there already and he doesn't need to go this route. The two days of Night was more than enough to show us what he has previously done and it's not like the guy is a hack or anything either - furthest thing from it.

whether you know it or not - he's very popular and without a doubt, he's popular enough to not have to rely on this kind advertising.

Marketing? Yeah I know marketing. Errrrrrr

SomeVoices

My mom wants to see it based on that commercial. She has no idea who M. Night is, but she's seen all of his films. It seems the commercial worked for her anyways.

jaeufraser

I think the point is marketing is never subtle. I really doubt this was M Night saying "I want my name all over everything!!!" Honestly, if you don't sell this as an M Night movie, how do you sell it? His last two movies could hinge on its stars...Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson. This time they don't have that star, so it's easier to say "from the director of this and that movie." he is very popular, and surely this will be reiterating a point that many know, but when has Hollywood marketing every been anything but that? When we see a preview for a movie starring Julia Roberts, do they really need to tell us her name 3 times in the preview? We know who she is. They just...do it that way.

I just highly doubt this marketing campaign is indicative of the quality of the movie. This is how studios market things, and in this case it's just not surprising. The entire appeal of this movie is based on the director...so of course their going to sell it as such. Subtle, interesting, and compelling marketing campaigns...yeah Hollywood doesn't really do that. And quite frankly...it's unfortunately not usually as effective as the name dropping method. We do have to remember that this is a big, mainstream film...and that's how it's going to be sold. And again, with no really major stars, no special effects, no jokes, no huge sets or battles...this is how they're selling it. Makes sense to me. I didn't mean to insult you or anything...but to think there's something behind this is quite ridiculous...besides normal marketing practices. Remember Kill Bill and how that made such a huge deal out of it being Tarantino's 4th movie? Largely because they were selling it on his name. In this movie's case, it's a film with a much larger commercial appeal, and they're capitilizing on it.

Rival11

You didn't insult me at all and I think this is the first actual conversation in the thread that sticks to the topic.

Just to clear up as well, I don't think there is anything behind what's going on (and I don't think either one of us would bother trying to figure it out if there was) and I more than agree with you as to how it is usually done in the biz, but I just don't know......it's just really wierd to me all around - before any huge word got out about this flick, I recevied a million (ok not a million but a lot) of e-mails from people telling me to "watch this trailer!!!" I had no clue he even had another movie finished and I hear about this flick more than once everyday at work (typical office bulls****).

I guess I could go on forever but I do agree with a lot of what you said and my main point is that I just never seen such a high profile guy get his movies pushed so hard like this.

About the Kill Bill thing - yes, you're right, but then again to me it was all done in a more timely fashion.

jaeufraser

I agree, the Kill Bill thing was done far more tastefully. But M Night is very unique among top Hollywood directors. For one he has much much more commercial potential than Tarantino has, and his project is by all means higher profile (at least financially speaking). What other director has commanded so much box office...and truly is the sole star of his films. Even Spielberg makes movies that can sell based on other elements...special effects, big stars, etc. But with M Night, you have a director that makes films that make enormous amounts of money and...well, sell based on his design. His movies aren't really mega expensive...but they are big event movies due to the box office clout he carries.

So, yeah I do agree it is odd to see a movie hinge so much on the director, but I think it's more indicative of how much an oddity M Night is in the business. You have a director that doesn't rely on effects, hugungous sets, and in this films case, big stars. Instead, people know he's a good storyteller, and will watch his films based on...his previous films. And that really is the selling point to the mass populous for M Night. People liked his previous films, so they want to see his new one. He's like a PTA or Tarantino in that people will watch his movies jsut cause it's his movie, but on the other hand he's an enormous commercial commodity. Most of the directors who have a fan base watch their films soley based on them have a much smaller fan base and not nearly the box office potential Night has. And I think that's the distinction. How many other major Hollywood movies (think summer blockbuster types) could really be sold pretty much solely on the director? Granted, M Night's movies reflect his previous ones, and I'm sure if the film was way off base from his previous stuff his name might not work, but at the moment I think it actually is the best marketing tool they've got going for them. Imagine if someone else had made this movie...same movie, just some director who's not so famous. It probably wouldn't have half the monetary potential this film has, and that says a lot.

Rival11

Well said again and if this movie kicks ass (well of course there are more reasons), I may never bitch about the over bearing hype again..............I will simply accept it.