Every critical choice we make about any medium or work of art that we then broadcast to others is simply an attempt to establish an identity within a certain community.

This applies to both negative and positive judgments. So while it is true we do get a certain positive value reinforcement from aligning ourselves with the "Shamaylan sucks!!11?" group, we similarly are attempting to establish our bonafides for membership in another group by rejecting the negative opinion.

All of the discussing we do on here is a series of poses, a sort of grasping for identity. Normally I say this is to provide ourselves with access to the reproductive possibilities within a certain group we aspire to be a part of, but that sorts of breaks down on a sci fi internet forum where the likelihood of any of us here, especially here, having sex with eachother is diminished.

lukeoneil47

Inkymonkey

Menouthis

Wouldn't that mean that vegetarians were wrong all along?

Jonn

If you guys want to have some fun away from your flame war, try getting a bunch of friends together, watching signs, and then doing a corn maze at night.

That was a good time.

ggodo

Darkweave

It's not an essentially pretentious argument to say that all art is subjective; but it is an easy argument for a pretentious person to use, in order to provide validity to their opinion with regards to the opinion of an authority.

braak

Repeatedly belittling anyone who may disagree with your interpretation, however, is.

extracrispy

So a movie is an artistic success, and is of quality, only if YOU say so. In the loosest definition of things, an artist is a success if he endeavours to reproduce a certain experience he envisions through the techniques he develops. Shayalaman's done that, regardless of what YOU think of his films.

Regardless of what you think of John Steinbeck's books, or Picasso's paintings, you have to admit that they are art. The vision of the artist enacted and communicated through technique.

@Ray Gunn: "derivative without being overt in his homages". I'm sorry, the basis for your criticism is that he uses other people as influence?! THIS IS WHAT ALL ART IS. YOU'RE DESCRIBING THE PROCESS OF MAKING ART. You see something that influences you, you try to adapt it to what you need to express. Where do you think art comes from?! What you've just said quite literally MAKES NO SENSE. And sort of proves my point. Being "overt" in your "homage" is one of those total bull phrases.

And Feist is a fine singer for what she sings. She's a folk singer, they don't need operatic training. I've sang for 12 years of my life and she sounds perfectly okay to me. Nobody's cared about "phrasing" since Sinatra was famous, and she's got a nice sort of smokey timbre to her voice. Try again later.

Pope John Peeps II

BadUncle

BadUncle

At one point I heard a rumor that he was going to do a Harry Potter movie. That would have been cool. I think his greatest potential lies in making movies that he did not write, or rewrite, or touch the script in any way other than to read it. But evidence suggests that he is too much a prima donna to sully his hands with any script written by another person.

Therefore, blech.

etho

braak

extracrispy

braak

I like some of this guy's movies (Unbreakable, the 'I see dead people one', whatever that was called), others are okay ( Villiage was hokey but kind of fun, Lady didn't go anywhere but was sort of adequate).

I'm never forgiving him for Signs, though. Not only was the plot imbecilic, but the Dad was possibly the most completely despicable character ever presented in a positive light.
-Kle.

Klebert L. Hall

And if I dislike M. Night because he's derivative without being overt in his homages and because color symbolism is not a good enough substitute for artistic expression, are those good enough aesthetic reasons for you?

You'll find that many people aren't haters just because hating is more fun. Maybe some people lack the technical vocabulary to express succintly what their complaint is, but that doesn't give you enough ammunition to say they lack reasons.

Ray Gunn

And you're still wrong. A movie needs a strong story first and foremost to succeed. Shyamalan's films fail, despite how moody and creepy looking you think they are, because the stories are weak and they do rely on poor gimmicks.

And your little "bandwagon complaining" comment has left the realm of pretentious and entered the self-righteous. It's pretty smug to suggest that anyone who doesn't like Shyamalan's movies can't think for themselves.

extracrispy

I feel sorry M. Night Shamalamadingdong since he is now expected to make blockbuster films. The scrutiny he now gets for striking gold on his first film is relentless. It seems it's far better to make shitty films at the beginning of one's career and grow as a filmmaker than to be instantly known as an auteur and expected to live up to that reputation.

Ravac

@extracrispy: Like Braak said. If story was everything then you'd be reading books. You're going to movies for the unfolding of images. A good story only helps those images unfold properly. Just like books - a good story only leads the language of a book to unfold into meaning. When you put the story first, it easily becomes gimmicky.

Bandwagon complaining is just a way to generate cred for yourself without having to justify your own thought. It's like hating Feist. People who hate Feist can never really explain the "why". Because there's no good reason for it other than to bolster your own self-image.

Hate what deserves to be hated according to actual REASONS. If it's artistic, have genuine aesthetic reasons. If it's intellectual, have good thought behind what you're saying.

Pope John Peeps II

braak

Ray Gunn

Also, your little rant came across as more pretentious than any other comment on this thread.

extracrispy

Macloserboy

Szin

DarkPlaces

1) I generally agree with what you said.

2) I am surprised that it's you that gave this speech.

You may have...three points.

braak

But if you were being honest with yourself, you'd admit that the man can make a movie. Sure, maybe his WRITING isn't top-notch, and The Village had an incredibly silly twist. But it's good enough to allow him to really film the images he wants to film, and capture the tension he imagines. And he's really great at that. And THAT'S what's magnificent about his films.

Whine whine whine as much as you like, but the secret to not being a pretentious twat is to recognize what people do well, as well as what they do poorly. There's room in art for extremely simple stories that are told with great elegance. For example - Signs. It's a nothing story. It has no story. But the way the whole thing unfolds on film... well - even if you predicted the ending, it's an interesting and surprising moment.

And by the way, are all you readers of Sci-fi literature, which traditionally WORSHIPS at the altar of shitty twist endings, actually criticizing a twist ending? Have you READ science fiction lately? It's like 75 years of bad twist endings....

Pope John Peeps II

(Darn Keyboard!)

Klappstuhl

SPOILER: The Virus dies due to WATER!

Klappstuhl

Imipolex_G-Unit

Imipolex_G-Unit

Loved that Roald Dahl story. Tried to make a short film of it once, but it never got off the ground. Story of my life, actually.

"There appears to be an event happening." Isn't that true all day every day?

How many ex-hippies will go to a movie called "The Happening" thinking it's about some sort of performance art?

SeeingI

I have a fantasy where I take her hostage and she sings me to sleep every night.

Too much?

peanutismint

I wonder if that's three twist endings or just one at the very, very end.

JohnnyZito

Nebris

doctor_cos

Darkweave

Dude, you bring nothing new to the table! Your "twists" only work with children. Also, a mature storyline cannot hinge upon a single element.
Point in case - "The Fight Club". Arguably a fine piece of cinema, that can be viewed from different angles depending on what knowledge you are privy to. But no matter if you've seen it before or not, it is still a good piece of storytelling.

Please people - you're money is your vote!

Katana_Mind

Guess what, when Lady in water came in theaters, the local distributor put a ticker during the trailing asking people not to give away the ending. :D
@BONNIEGRRLL...hoping the same.

Ghost Particle

Still wishing M. would do a sequel to "Unbreakable."
*sigh*

bonniegrrl

IMDB link to movie:
[imdb.com]

Gojulas

Marcus117

Slatz_Grobnik

"Earth First! We'll pave the other planets later!"

Mister Adequate

noncornbatant

Inkymonkey

rogerniner

kaosdevice

sandchigger

At least Uwe Boll knows his a hack.

Jim (The Canuck One)

MercuryPDX

But, yeah, some of his "twists" don't do it for me.

Ben

kaosdevice

extracrispy

@Rockstar Ghede: That's a Roald Dahl story.

mumblingmynah

Maybe the plants HAVE been yelling at us, but we can't hear it.

I think I read a story like that. A guy made a device to listen to plants... and he could hear the screaming of the flowers being trimmed, the menacing grumble of the old oak tree... I think he died insane.

Ghede

7Zark7 Iz In Ur Internetz

diverguy

I can't wait until Marky Mark saves the day by killing every last fucking flower on Earth.

7Zark7 Iz In Ur Internetz

Gopherit

Simpsons-Movie-ruled

I love "Robot Chicken"...

Frozen-Tex

@simpsons-movie-ruled: That's "game show" host and former Nixon speech-writer Ben Stein.

92BuickLeSabre

bonniegrrl

Simpsons-Movie-ruled

Pope John Peeps II

DCI Gene Hunt