Who thinks Shyamalan deserves 'Uwe Boll hate?'
 

I realize Boll makes truly awful films, but alot of directors do. I guess the hate for Boll really stems from his arrogant attitude, but to me, it seems like he's really having fun stirring shit up.

Shyamalan on the other hand, strikes me as a completely arrogant jackass. He's already proven with his films that he's a gimmick (although I will admit I can still watch and enjoy Unbreakable and Signs).

Add to that, the fact he took part in that awful Sci-Fi Channel fake documentary a few years back, accusations of ripping of existing material, the implications from Mark Wahlberg that he believes himself to be infallible and close-minded, and I think you have a guy that really does deserves the level of hatred that Uwe Boll currently gets.

There's already a discussion thread as well as a Guess the Tomatometer thread; plenty of room to dose out your hate.

I see your point. Uwe Boll is ignorantly horrible, while Shyamalan is arrogantly horrible. The fact that Shyamalan is fairly popular doesn't help things. I'm all for hating Shyamastgousd more than Boll, though I will admit that his movies are at least a little better. (Though they both fall into the range of "will not see." And I guess one "will not see" movie is equal to any other.)

So, yeah, I'm willing to say I hate Shyamaohojhsg and Boll equally, as directors.

Yeah, that fake-umentary--on top of everything else I've ever read about him--pretty much exposed him as an egomaniac. He's got some talent, though, and I don't think the same could be said for Boll. But that kinda makes Shyamalan even worse. He's got potential as a director but apparently fails to realize what a poor job he's done on the screenplays of his last few movies. He views himself as a misunderstood genius and there's no arguing with someone like that.
Eh, I don't hate him, but I won't be watching The Happening or any more of his movies unless he makes one that gets high praise from more than just his fanbase/apologists.

Well, I haven't liked any of the movies I've seen from him, and those are the three most highly-regarded (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs).

However, Boll is just in a different league of suckitude. At least I believe that Shyamalan could make something I would like. I'm not sure Boll has the potential.

:horse:

With the exception of Lady in the Water, I've enjoyed all of the Shyamalan movies I've seen.

Obviously. Since he has more movies on the IMDB bottom 100.

Naw, while Shyamalan makes kind of crappy movies, they aren't to the same level as Boll's.

The big thing to me is Shyamalan isn't screwing anything up outside of his name, Boll screws up videogames that have a built-in audience and, while not yet proven, could have actually been good movies with somebody who gave a damn.

I think M. Night's ego is crazy. What was up with the critic in "The Happening"? I mean seriously.

The most dangerous people are those who don't know, but don't know what they don't know. That seems like Shyamalan, even though like EdtheRipper, I've enjoyed pretty much all his films. Boll may know he's crappy (or he may not), but he seems to enjoy stirring up stuff, which in turn probably helps the publicity of his non-Hollywood films.

The only way to decide this issue of who is worse:
put M. Night and Uwe in a boxing ring together

I like M.Night's films because you don't know what to expect from them, and there are so many movies these days that are so by the book, you almost wonder why they are even making them?

I agree that he goes too far with the gimmicks at the end of the movie, as the success of The Sixth Sense maybe went to his head. But every movie I see by Shyamalan, I atleast don't know what will happen throughout the movie, they are always well acted, and always have an eerie atmosphere to them.

I think his movies you either get or you don't, as I feel Tim Burton is the same way, as their directorial styles are not for everyone, but I always look forward to his movies.

Uwe Boll is a nobody. I swear the only people that know him are internet geeks. I've never seen an Uwe Boll film and have never met anyone who has heard of him. M. Night, on the other hand, is given the royal treatment in Hollywood and squanders it away. When directors like Paul Thomas Anderson, Woody Allen and David Gordon Green struggle to get funding for their films while studios give M. Night a blank check - it's just terrible.

They both blow like the solar wind. I've only seen Boll's "House of the Dead", which was horrible, but in a hilarious way.

Shamalamadingdog tries to make quality films, but they all fall flat or are very disappointing. M. Night's "The Village" is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater where everyone booed when it was over.

I'm more interested in seeing Postal than I am any Shyamalan film other than Unbreakable. :shrug:

Again? I haven't seen the flick yet (prob won't now either) but he did that shit in Lady in the Water already.....why a second time?

All of Shyamalan's movies are at least interesting and competent. Some are actually excellent (Signs and Unbreakable). But Boll is 100% hack. I let my ex-girlfriend pick what movies we were renting ONCE. And of course she had to pick House of the Dead. That was the first and last time she ever picked a movie for us to watch.

Uh... not a chance. Night has at least 2 movies that are considered great, and maybe another 1 or 2 that are good. Uwe Boll doesn't come close.

M. Night sucks. His only good film was The Sixth Sense. Unbreakable had potential, and was ruined by him, its only redeeming quality was good performances from Willis and Jackson. The Village and Signs both suck. Lady In The Water, I refused to see (even though I like Giamatti) as it looks horrendous. The Happening could be good, but M. Night will screw it up somehow.

What exactly was so great about The Sixth Sense? I honestly thought it was a bore. It didn't hold a good atmosphere and the movie just dragged on and on. I don't get the love for it.

Signs may have got silly but hell at least it wasn't boring.

I hated the Sixth Sense, because I guessed the twist ending during the first few minutes of the movie. I still can't believe the hype it got as it bored the hell out of me.

I liked Signs, but thought it went for the twist ending at the expense of the story. I liked it better while it stayed a "supernatural" story.

Unbreakable is really the only film that I really enjoy.

Did you see Sixth Sense in a theater early on?

I don't think it has anything going in rewatch value, but it was decent the first time.

His films seem to "work" only if you have absolutely no clue going in.

I figured out the ending to Sixth Sense midway through based on the hints he was dropping (the shot of the thermostat with the temperature dropping was really what did it) but it did not diminish the film for me at all. I still thought it was clever and well-made. It is his only solid film, in my opinion.

Unbreakable is the classic M. Night film that has potential and squanders it with a poorly-executed ending. I was just baffled by how fast that movie went downhill at the end... It just made no sense and I also thought the movie's telling you the resolution with a black screen filled by text rather than showing you was a complete cop-out.

I agree with something I saw here, I think, about how M. Night hasn't been a relevant filmmaker for like six years now. He is the worst mainstream director in Hollywood.

I think I've enjoyed all of Shyamalan's movies. I don't own any of them, but don't mind watching them again if someone throws one on.

Boll's movies, on the other hand, are worth watching only once. Mainly just see how bad one could be, but also because I want to make sure to see the one that's good, if he ever makes one.

As someone else said, at least Shyamalan's movies aren't fucking up what could be a cool franchise.