Shyamalan's falling out with Disney
06-23-06, 11:03 AM
#1
Shyamalan's falling out with Disney
Shyamalan Book Tells of Breakup With Disney
By Claudia Eller, Times Staff Writer
June 23, 2006
A new chapter has just been written in Hollywood about the never-ending tension between "the talent" and "the suits."
It can be found in a soon-to-be-published tell-all book that offers something very rare, indeed: a candid recounting, complete with tears and recriminations, of a messy divorce between a movie studio and one of the world's most famous writer-directors.
In "The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale," the 35-year-old filmmaker whose name has become synonymous with spooky suspense thrillers crucifies the top executives at the company he long had considered his artistic home since his 1999 surprise hit "The Sixth Sense": Walt Disney Studios.
Penned by Sports Illustrated writer Michael Bamberger with Shyamalan's blessing and extensive participation, the 278-page book hits stores July 20. That's one day before the theatrical premiere of Shyamalan's new movie, "Lady in the Water," which is at the center of the dispute that led him to part ways with Disney.
The $70-million movie, a scary fantasy that stars Paul Giamatti as an apartment building superintendent who rescues a sea nymph he finds in his swimming pool, was ultimately financed by Warner Bros.
But arguably as shocking as the movie itself is the way Shyamalan, in the book, disses his former studio. As galleys circulate around town, that more than anything else has people musing about just how fragile relationships between artists and executives can be.
Disney production President Nina Jacobson gets the worst drubbing.
Jacobson and Shyamalan enjoyed a close, albeit sometimes combative, relationship. Over six years, she shepherded his four Disney films including "Unbreakable," "Signs" and "The Village." On what would have been their fifth collaboration, their bond so eroded that the two didn't speak for more than a year.
At a disastrous dinner in Philadelphia last year, Jacobson delivered a frank critique of the "Lady in the Water" script. When she told him that she and her boss, studio Chairman Dick Cook, didn't "get" the idea, Shyamalan was heartbroken. Things got only worse when she lambasted his inclusion of a mauling of a film critic in the story line and told Shyamalan his decision to cast himself as a visionary writer out to change the world bordered on self-serving.
But Shyamalan gets his revenge on Jacobson in the book, in which he says he had felt for some time that he "had witnessed the decay of her creative vision right before his own wide-open eyes. She didn't want iconoclastic directors. She wanted directors who made money."
Bamberger readily acknowledges that the book is told from Shyamalan's point of view.
"It's not intended to be balanced," Bamberger said of the book, based on a year he spent shadowing Shyamalan. "It's a Night-centric view of how Night works."
If that's all it was, of course, there wouldn't be so many bruised feelings at Disney, whose executives the book maligns as drones who lack creative vision.
Of Disney's three top executives, Jacobson, Cook and marketing head Oren Aviv, the book says, "They had morphed into one, the embodiment of the company they worked for. And that company … no longer valued individualism … no longer valued fighters."
Nevertheless, the book says Shyamalan was haunted by them.
"Sometimes Night would close his eyes and see little oval black and white head shots of Nina Jacobson and Oren Aviv and Dick Cook floating around in his head, unwanted houseguests that would not leave," Bamberger writes. "The Disney people had gotten deep inside his head, interfering with the good work the voices were supposed to do — and it would be hell to get them out."
In an interview, Bamberger said that in that section — like in several others — he was channeling Shyamalan's deepest convictions, even though the book usually does not quote the writer-director directly.
"Night really let me get inside his head," Bamberger said. "He told me what he was thinking, and I wrote it."
Shyamalan was vacationing in France and did not respond to questions sent via e-mail. His publicist, Leslee Dart, said her client "totally supports the book," and the book's publisher, William Shinker of Gotham Books, said Shyamalan had agreed to help promote the nonfiction account.
Were it not for Bamberger's book, the Disney-Shyamalan split might have been viewed as just another beat amid the constant churn of Hollywood relationships. Everyone knows that highly accomplished artists are often as deeply insecure as they are brilliant. It can be a challenge for executives to pacify the creative folks, while pleasing the bean counters.
"There is an elusive balance that all parties strive for between art and commerce," said Warner Bros. President Alan Horn, who was Shyamalan's first call after the breakup with Disney. With "Lady in the Water," which is being launched with a $70-million marketing campaign, Horn said, "We're trying to support a film that has unique artistic expression and at the same time make money."
Paramount Pictures President Gail Berman, whose studio recently decided to postpone production of "Ripley's Believe It or Not," starring Jim Carrey, over budgetary concerns, agreed.
"We all walk the line of devotion to the artist and fiscal responsibility," she said. "Sometimes this is the trickiest part of the job."
But, whereas Carrey and director Tim Burton are continuing to work out their script issues with Paramount, Shyamalan didn't give Disney that option. As the book says, Shyamalan felt that when executives criticized his "Lady in the Water" script "they were rejecting him." So he walked.
Disney's executives are not the only ones who are ripped in the book. Miramax Films co-founder Harvey Weinstein is described as "famously tyrannical" and is portrayed as ruthlessly recutting Shyamalan's 1998 indie film "Wide Awake."
"Why is he doing this?" Shyamalan is quoted asking one of Weinstein's lieutenants.
"Because you're not an A-list director," the unnamed aide answers.
"But could I be?" Shyamalan asks. Then, Bamberger takes us into Shyamalan's head as he imagines Weinstein's answer: "Night heard Harvey screaming in the silence: 'You're not, and you never will be.' The movie bombed, as it had to. It had been made in bad faith."
That, in essence, is the reason Shyamalan — who today is not only A-list, but is such a known quantity that his name alone sells a movie — gives for his refusal to continue his relationship with Disney.
The book's most revealing scene is the tense dinner of Feb. 15, 2005, and its aftermath — referred to by Shyamalan's colleagues as "The Valentine's Day Massacre."
The setting was a fancy Philadelphia restaurant, Lacroix, not far from the farmhouse where Shyamalan, his wife and two daughters live. But from the start, the book says, the dinner seemed doomed. The tables were too close together, and "Night felt that other diners could hear their conversation."
Seated next to Shyamalan, Jacobson aired her problems with the script. Criticisms "came spewing out of her without a filter," Bamberger writes.
"You said it was funny; I didn't laugh," the book quotes her as saying. "You're going to let a critic get attacked? They'll kill you for that … Your part's too big; you'll get killed again … What's with the names? Scrunt? Narf? Tartutic? Not working … Don't get it … Not buying it. Not getting it. Not working."
Her words went over like spoiled fish. "She went on and on and on," the book says. "Night was waiting for her to say she didn't like the font" his assistant had printed the script in.
After way too many courses, Disney executives walked Shyamalan and his agent to the elevator, and Cook asked to speak to the director alone.
"Just make the movie for us," Cook said, hoping to keep Disney's most important director in the fold. "We'll give you $60 million and say, 'Do what you want with it.' We won't touch it. We'll see you at the premiere."
Shyamalan said he couldn't do that. He couldn't work with those who doubted him. As Cook and his team left the hotel, Shyamalan broke down and cried.
"He was crying because he liked them as people and he knew he would not see them again, not as his partners," the author writes. "He was crying because he was scared … He was crying because he knew they could be right."
Shyamalan wasn't the only one crying. Jacobson has confided to colleagues that when she returned to her hotel room at the Four Seasons that night, she broke down.
She and Shyamalan would not talk again until March of this year. At the director's request, the two met for breakfast at the posh Hotel Bel-Air.
By then, Bamberger writes, Shyamalan had realized that "it wasn't Nina's fault that she didn't 'get' the original 'Lady' script, it was Night's fault."
Despite that late-in-the-book mea culpa, associates of Jacobson say that reading the tell-all was painful for her. She declined to comment on the book and on Shyamalan himself. But she acknowledged the inherent difficulties of the "patron-artist" relationship.
"Not seeing eye to eye on a particular piece of material doesn't have to be the end of a relationship," Jacobson said. "It may not always be easy to have an honest exchange. But in order to have a Hollywood relationship more closely approximate a real relationship, you have to have a genuine back and forth of the good and the bad."
She added: "Different people have different ideas about respect. For us, being honest is the greatest show of respect for a filmmaker.
---
I have to side with the suits on this one. He seemed to let his ego get in the way. Especially coming after the disappointing "The Village".
By Claudia Eller, Times Staff Writer
June 23, 2006
A new chapter has just been written in Hollywood about the never-ending tension between "the talent" and "the suits."
It can be found in a soon-to-be-published tell-all book that offers something very rare, indeed: a candid recounting, complete with tears and recriminations, of a messy divorce between a movie studio and one of the world's most famous writer-directors.
In "The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale," the 35-year-old filmmaker whose name has become synonymous with spooky suspense thrillers crucifies the top executives at the company he long had considered his artistic home since his 1999 surprise hit "The Sixth Sense": Walt Disney Studios.
Penned by Sports Illustrated writer Michael Bamberger with Shyamalan's blessing and extensive participation, the 278-page book hits stores July 20. That's one day before the theatrical premiere of Shyamalan's new movie, "Lady in the Water," which is at the center of the dispute that led him to part ways with Disney.
The $70-million movie, a scary fantasy that stars Paul Giamatti as an apartment building superintendent who rescues a sea nymph he finds in his swimming pool, was ultimately financed by Warner Bros.
But arguably as shocking as the movie itself is the way Shyamalan, in the book, disses his former studio. As galleys circulate around town, that more than anything else has people musing about just how fragile relationships between artists and executives can be.
Disney production President Nina Jacobson gets the worst drubbing.
Jacobson and Shyamalan enjoyed a close, albeit sometimes combative, relationship. Over six years, she shepherded his four Disney films including "Unbreakable," "Signs" and "The Village." On what would have been their fifth collaboration, their bond so eroded that the two didn't speak for more than a year.
At a disastrous dinner in Philadelphia last year, Jacobson delivered a frank critique of the "Lady in the Water" script. When she told him that she and her boss, studio Chairman Dick Cook, didn't "get" the idea, Shyamalan was heartbroken. Things got only worse when she lambasted his inclusion of a mauling of a film critic in the story line and told Shyamalan his decision to cast himself as a visionary writer out to change the world bordered on self-serving.
But Shyamalan gets his revenge on Jacobson in the book, in which he says he had felt for some time that he "had witnessed the decay of her creative vision right before his own wide-open eyes. She didn't want iconoclastic directors. She wanted directors who made money."
Bamberger readily acknowledges that the book is told from Shyamalan's point of view.
"It's not intended to be balanced," Bamberger said of the book, based on a year he spent shadowing Shyamalan. "It's a Night-centric view of how Night works."
If that's all it was, of course, there wouldn't be so many bruised feelings at Disney, whose executives the book maligns as drones who lack creative vision.
Of Disney's three top executives, Jacobson, Cook and marketing head Oren Aviv, the book says, "They had morphed into one, the embodiment of the company they worked for. And that company … no longer valued individualism … no longer valued fighters."
Nevertheless, the book says Shyamalan was haunted by them.
"Sometimes Night would close his eyes and see little oval black and white head shots of Nina Jacobson and Oren Aviv and Dick Cook floating around in his head, unwanted houseguests that would not leave," Bamberger writes. "The Disney people had gotten deep inside his head, interfering with the good work the voices were supposed to do — and it would be hell to get them out."
In an interview, Bamberger said that in that section — like in several others — he was channeling Shyamalan's deepest convictions, even though the book usually does not quote the writer-director directly.
"Night really let me get inside his head," Bamberger said. "He told me what he was thinking, and I wrote it."
Shyamalan was vacationing in France and did not respond to questions sent via e-mail. His publicist, Leslee Dart, said her client "totally supports the book," and the book's publisher, William Shinker of Gotham Books, said Shyamalan had agreed to help promote the nonfiction account.
Were it not for Bamberger's book, the Disney-Shyamalan split might have been viewed as just another beat amid the constant churn of Hollywood relationships. Everyone knows that highly accomplished artists are often as deeply insecure as they are brilliant. It can be a challenge for executives to pacify the creative folks, while pleasing the bean counters.
"There is an elusive balance that all parties strive for between art and commerce," said Warner Bros. President Alan Horn, who was Shyamalan's first call after the breakup with Disney. With "Lady in the Water," which is being launched with a $70-million marketing campaign, Horn said, "We're trying to support a film that has unique artistic expression and at the same time make money."
Paramount Pictures President Gail Berman, whose studio recently decided to postpone production of "Ripley's Believe It or Not," starring Jim Carrey, over budgetary concerns, agreed.
"We all walk the line of devotion to the artist and fiscal responsibility," she said. "Sometimes this is the trickiest part of the job."
But, whereas Carrey and director Tim Burton are continuing to work out their script issues with Paramount, Shyamalan didn't give Disney that option. As the book says, Shyamalan felt that when executives criticized his "Lady in the Water" script "they were rejecting him." So he walked.
Disney's executives are not the only ones who are ripped in the book. Miramax Films co-founder Harvey Weinstein is described as "famously tyrannical" and is portrayed as ruthlessly recutting Shyamalan's 1998 indie film "Wide Awake."
"Why is he doing this?" Shyamalan is quoted asking one of Weinstein's lieutenants.
"Because you're not an A-list director," the unnamed aide answers.
"But could I be?" Shyamalan asks. Then, Bamberger takes us into Shyamalan's head as he imagines Weinstein's answer: "Night heard Harvey screaming in the silence: 'You're not, and you never will be.' The movie bombed, as it had to. It had been made in bad faith."
That, in essence, is the reason Shyamalan — who today is not only A-list, but is such a known quantity that his name alone sells a movie — gives for his refusal to continue his relationship with Disney.
The book's most revealing scene is the tense dinner of Feb. 15, 2005, and its aftermath — referred to by Shyamalan's colleagues as "The Valentine's Day Massacre."
The setting was a fancy Philadelphia restaurant, Lacroix, not far from the farmhouse where Shyamalan, his wife and two daughters live. But from the start, the book says, the dinner seemed doomed. The tables were too close together, and "Night felt that other diners could hear their conversation."
Seated next to Shyamalan, Jacobson aired her problems with the script. Criticisms "came spewing out of her without a filter," Bamberger writes.
"You said it was funny; I didn't laugh," the book quotes her as saying. "You're going to let a critic get attacked? They'll kill you for that … Your part's too big; you'll get killed again … What's with the names? Scrunt? Narf? Tartutic? Not working … Don't get it … Not buying it. Not getting it. Not working."
Her words went over like spoiled fish. "She went on and on and on," the book says. "Night was waiting for her to say she didn't like the font" his assistant had printed the script in.
After way too many courses, Disney executives walked Shyamalan and his agent to the elevator, and Cook asked to speak to the director alone.
"Just make the movie for us," Cook said, hoping to keep Disney's most important director in the fold. "We'll give you $60 million and say, 'Do what you want with it.' We won't touch it. We'll see you at the premiere."
Shyamalan said he couldn't do that. He couldn't work with those who doubted him. As Cook and his team left the hotel, Shyamalan broke down and cried.
"He was crying because he liked them as people and he knew he would not see them again, not as his partners," the author writes. "He was crying because he was scared … He was crying because he knew they could be right."
Shyamalan wasn't the only one crying. Jacobson has confided to colleagues that when she returned to her hotel room at the Four Seasons that night, she broke down.
She and Shyamalan would not talk again until March of this year. At the director's request, the two met for breakfast at the posh Hotel Bel-Air.
By then, Bamberger writes, Shyamalan had realized that "it wasn't Nina's fault that she didn't 'get' the original 'Lady' script, it was Night's fault."
Despite that late-in-the-book mea culpa, associates of Jacobson say that reading the tell-all was painful for her. She declined to comment on the book and on Shyamalan himself. But she acknowledged the inherent difficulties of the "patron-artist" relationship.
"Not seeing eye to eye on a particular piece of material doesn't have to be the end of a relationship," Jacobson said. "It may not always be easy to have an honest exchange. But in order to have a Hollywood relationship more closely approximate a real relationship, you have to have a genuine back and forth of the good and the bad."
She added: "Different people have different ideas about respect. For us, being honest is the greatest show of respect for a filmmaker.
---
I have to side with the suits on this one. He seemed to let his ego get in the way. Especially coming after the disappointing "The Village".
06-23-06, 11:46 AM
#6
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Michael Bamberger? Isn't he the douche bag that waited a day to inform the world that Michelle Wie took an illegal drop in her first pro golf tournament which ended up getting her DQ'd and obviously got his name in the papers?
Besides why would a sports writer write a book about a director and movie studio?
Besides why would a sports writer write a book about a director and movie studio?
06-23-06, 12:20 PM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Normally I would side with the director, but if M. Night truly has himself in a prominent role in the movie then I have to agree that his ego has gotten out of control. I wonder if this movie bombs it will burn the bridge he has with WB right now?
Also, his name alone does not sell a movie, the average J6P has no idea who directed any movie unless it's by Steven Spielberg.
Also, his name alone does not sell a movie, the average J6P has no idea who directed any movie unless it's by Steven Spielberg.
06-23-06, 12:27 PM
#8
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by whoopdido
Besides why would a sports writer write a book about a director and movie studio?
06-23-06, 12:33 PM
#9
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,830
Received 1,883 Likes
on
1,239 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
Also, his name alone does not sell a movie, the average J6P has no idea who directed any movie unless it's by Steven Spielberg.
06-23-06, 02:05 PM
#10
Senior Member
At least it DID. After Lady in the Water, it may not.
Getting acting talent for his films since Signs appears to be a major difficulty for Shyamalan--and actors sell a film as much as any director does.
Frankly, M. Night Shyamalan seems incredibly naive. Disney execs have done far worse to far more accomplished actors and directors than he. If you've read DisneyWar, none of the juicy tidbits touted in this upcoming "tell-all" seem very revelatory.
Wow, they criticized his work! That's a first.
News flash: they're Hollywood EXECUTIVES. They're not there to support individualism--they're there to make sure Night's films make money (and they haven't, as of late). It doesn't matter what his personal relationship is with them.
Seriously, is he the last director in the world to figure this out?
Getting acting talent for his films since Signs appears to be a major difficulty for Shyamalan--and actors sell a film as much as any director does.
Frankly, M. Night Shyamalan seems incredibly naive. Disney execs have done far worse to far more accomplished actors and directors than he. If you've read DisneyWar, none of the juicy tidbits touted in this upcoming "tell-all" seem very revelatory.
Wow, they criticized his work! That's a first.
News flash: they're Hollywood EXECUTIVES. They're not there to support individualism--they're there to make sure Night's films make money (and they haven't, as of late). It doesn't matter what his personal relationship is with them.
Seriously, is he the last director in the world to figure this out?
06-23-06, 02:39 PM
#11
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by GeorgeP
At least it DID. After Lady in the Water, it may not.
Getting acting talent for his films since Signs appears to be a major difficulty for Shyamalan--and actors sell a film as much as any director does.
Frankly, M. Night Shyamalan seems incredibly naive. Disney execs have done far worse to far more accomplished actors and directors than he. If you've read DisneyWar, none of the juicy tidbits touted in this upcoming "tell-all" seem very revelatory.
Wow, they criticized his work! That's a first.
News flash: they're Hollywood EXECUTIVES. They're not there to support individualism--they're there to make sure Night's films make money (and they haven't, as of late). It doesn't matter what his personal relationship is with them.
Seriously, is he the last director in the world to figure this out?
Getting acting talent for his films since Signs appears to be a major difficulty for Shyamalan--and actors sell a film as much as any director does.
Frankly, M. Night Shyamalan seems incredibly naive. Disney execs have done far worse to far more accomplished actors and directors than he. If you've read DisneyWar, none of the juicy tidbits touted in this upcoming "tell-all" seem very revelatory.
Wow, they criticized his work! That's a first.
News flash: they're Hollywood EXECUTIVES. They're not there to support individualism--they're there to make sure Night's films make money (and they haven't, as of late). It doesn't matter what his personal relationship is with them.
Seriously, is he the last director in the world to figure this out?
Obviously The Sixth Sense was a huge hit.
Unbreakable cost 75 million not including marketing and made 248 million worldwide, so it wasn't a world beater, but it still made a decent profit plus dvd sales more than likely made the profit even higher.
Signs cost 72 million not including marketing and made 408 million worldwide. You add in dvd sales and that equals a monster hit.
The Village cost 60 million to make not including marketing and made 256 million worldwide. Very similar to Unbreakable but it cost a little less and made a little more.
So, Night has made 4 movies so far 2 of which were monster hits and 2 were had modest success. In any event Night's movies make plenty of money.
06-23-06, 02:45 PM
#12
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 2,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
Normally I would side with the director, but if M. Night truly has himself in a prominent role in the movie then I have to agree that his ego has gotten out of control.
06-23-06, 03:16 PM
#13
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 7,937
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by whoopdido
I don't know about not making any money.
Obviously The Sixth Sense was a huge hit.
Unbreakable cost 75 million not including marketing and made 248 million worldwide, so it wasn't a world beater, but it still made a decent profit plus dvd sales more than likely made the profit even higher.
Signs cost 72 million not including marketing and made 408 million worldwide. You add in dvd sales and that equals a monster hit.
The Village cost 60 million to make not including marketing and made 256 million worldwide. Very similar to Unbreakable but it cost a little less and made a little more.
So, Night has made 4 movies so far 2 of which were monster hits and 2 were had modest success. In any event Night's movies make plenty of money.
Obviously The Sixth Sense was a huge hit.
Unbreakable cost 75 million not including marketing and made 248 million worldwide, so it wasn't a world beater, but it still made a decent profit plus dvd sales more than likely made the profit even higher.
Signs cost 72 million not including marketing and made 408 million worldwide. You add in dvd sales and that equals a monster hit.
The Village cost 60 million to make not including marketing and made 256 million worldwide. Very similar to Unbreakable but it cost a little less and made a little more.
So, Night has made 4 movies so far 2 of which were monster hits and 2 were had modest success. In any event Night's movies make plenty of money.
06-23-06, 03:18 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: AnyTown, AnyState USA
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just like Mel Gibson said during his Oscar acceptance speech for Braveheart. something to the extent that: all directors want to be actors and all actors want to be directors.
I bet Night likes to see himself on the big screen
I bet Night likes to see himself on the big screen
06-23-06, 03:25 PM
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Dave7393
Hitchcock was in his own films, but the challenge was to find him somewhere in the movie (usually at the beginning of the film, in a very brief, nonspeaking part). I wouldnt mind if M. Night did something like that, but he can't keep showing up in in these more-than-minor roles time after time. There's really no good reason for it.
Another reason it worked for Hitchcok so well, not only because he showed up in brief nonspeaking roles, is because he blended in so well in a crowd. Yes, if you look for him you could spot him simply because of who he is, but he did blend in. With M. Night, even if you did the same thing in brief nonspeaking roles, he'd still stick out like a sore thumb. That's not a bash on him or anything either, it's just the fact of the matter.
I don't think he should be on screen in any of his films.
06-23-06, 03:45 PM
#17
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by BrentLumkin
That's almost exactly what I was going to say. It also doesn't help that M. Night doesn't have any actual acting talent to back up his roles in his films at all. It's like you're sitting there, watching the flick, then as soon as he shows up it just sorta takes you out of the film until his scenes are over.
Another reason it worked for Hitchcok so well, not only because he showed up in brief nonspeaking roles, is because he blended in so well in a crowd. Yes, if you look for him you could spot him simply because of who he is, but he did blend in. With M. Night, even if you did the same thing in brief nonspeaking roles, he'd still stick out like a sore thumb. That's not a bash on him or anything either, it's just the fact of the matter.
I don't think he should be on screen in any of his films.
Another reason it worked for Hitchcok so well, not only because he showed up in brief nonspeaking roles, is because he blended in so well in a crowd. Yes, if you look for him you could spot him simply because of who he is, but he did blend in. With M. Night, even if you did the same thing in brief nonspeaking roles, he'd still stick out like a sore thumb. That's not a bash on him or anything either, it's just the fact of the matter.
I don't think he should be on screen in any of his films.
But really how important were his roles other than the one in Signs? In Sixth Sense he was a doctor that had maybe 5-6 lines. In Unbreakable he had maybe 5 or 6 words. He was just the dude that Bruce Willis suspected having drugs or something on him. In Signs he actually played a very major character. It was his character that ultimately caused Mel Gibson to lose his faith and he had many more lines. In the Village he didn't amount to much either. Actually I don't even think he was shown on screen other than in a reflection and he only had a line or 2. If his voice wasn't pretty well known I doubt most people would have even known it was him in that scene.
06-23-06, 03:47 PM
#18
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by BrentLumkin
That's almost exactly what I was going to say. It also doesn't help that M. Night doesn't have any actual acting talent to back up his roles in his films at all. It's like you're sitting there, watching the flick, then as soon as he shows up it just sorta takes you out of the film until his scenes are over.
Another reason it worked for Hitchcok so well, not only because he showed up in brief nonspeaking roles, is because he blended in so well in a crowd. Yes, if you look for him you could spot him simply because of who he is, but he did blend in. With M. Night, even if you did the same thing in brief nonspeaking roles, he'd still stick out like a sore thumb. That's not a bash on him or anything either, it's just the fact of the matter.
I don't think he should be on screen in any of his films.
Another reason it worked for Hitchcok so well, not only because he showed up in brief nonspeaking roles, is because he blended in so well in a crowd. Yes, if you look for him you could spot him simply because of who he is, but he did blend in. With M. Night, even if you did the same thing in brief nonspeaking roles, he'd still stick out like a sore thumb. That's not a bash on him or anything either, it's just the fact of the matter.
I don't think he should be on screen in any of his films.
If this movie is a hit, then I would expect a movie entitled :"The Genius of M. Night Shymalan", written, produced, directed by, and starring M. Night Shymalan.
06-23-06, 03:51 PM
#19
DVD Talk Limited Edition
M. Night better be careful, because if this article is any indication, he might be the one that comes out looking like a jackass from his own book.
I do think M. Night has a lot of talent, but he needs to stop believing his own hype. Get back to telling personal stories and stop trying to pull the big trick....not every movie needs it, at some point (The Village) the movie falls apart because of it.
I do think M. Night has a lot of talent, but he needs to stop believing his own hype. Get back to telling personal stories and stop trying to pull the big trick....not every movie needs it, at some point (The Village) the movie falls apart because of it.
06-23-06, 04:22 PM
#20
DVD Talk Legend
I don't care how important his roles are. I think he's horrible with no acting talent, and it comes off like he's just stroking his ego...which is pretty much what he's doing anyway. When he shows up, you are paying attention to him and not the film anymore. Not only because of who he is, but because he's so bad at it and because he just sticks out like a sore thumb.
This type of gimmick can work with certain directors, but it doesn't work for him, not to me.
This type of gimmick can work with certain directors, but it doesn't work for him, not to me.
06-23-06, 04:33 PM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most overrated director ever IMO.
Seriously, why is he still a big name director when critics and the public both agree that almost all of his movies have after the 6th sense have been disappointments?
PPL thought he had potential after the 6th Sense, ever since that movie he hasn't made one decent flick.
I'm really baffled here....why does this director still have a reputation as one of the best young directors of our time when all his movies after the sixth sense are pretty much mediocre?
Seriously, why is he still a big name director when critics and the public both agree that almost all of his movies have after the 6th sense have been disappointments?
PPL thought he had potential after the 6th Sense, ever since that movie he hasn't made one decent flick.
I'm really baffled here....why does this director still have a reputation as one of the best young directors of our time when all his movies after the sixth sense are pretty much mediocre?
Last edited by Ralek; 06-23-06 at 04:38 PM.
06-23-06, 04:47 PM
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ralek
I'm really baffled here....why does this director still have a reputation as one of the best young directors of our time when all his movies after the sixth sense are pretty much mediocre?
06-23-06, 04:59 PM
#23
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by BrentLumkin
I don't care how important his roles are. I think he's horrible with no acting talent, and it comes off like he's just stroking his ego...which is pretty much what he's doing anyway. When he shows up, you are paying attention to him and not the film anymore. Not only because of who he is, but because he's so bad at it and because he just sticks out like a sore thumb.
This type of gimmick can work with certain directors, but it doesn't work for him, not to me.
This type of gimmick can work with certain directors, but it doesn't work for him, not to me.
06-23-06, 05:00 PM
#24
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Slayer2005
Probably because plenty of people liked Unbreakable and Signs.
As for Unbreakable, it was alright.
06-23-06, 05:24 PM
#25
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by whoopdido
Did it work for Tarantino in Resovoir Dogs?
I don't care when director's show up in their own films, but when they simply have no talent in that area, and it pulls you out of the film, then it just doesn't work and shouldn't be there.