Well I think most people here are actually attacking Night as a writer/director in general, not this specific movie. I don't really feel too compelled to see it when everything else he's made is bad, nor do I feel like I should have to just to call him out on being a bad director.
But I mean...What do you want to talk about then? I think a few posts have been made (Hundley's in particular) detailing how, or at least WHY, he is a bad director, and you just brushed all that off with NO HES A GOOD DIRECTOR YOU'RE WRONG without explaining why you think his movies are well directed beyond being DIFFERENT or whatever (this does not make a movie good). It doesn't really sound like you want to have much of an intelligent discussion, since one's already been put forth and you just shot it down with NOPE I'M RIGHT. If you really want a rational, in-depth discussion, you should probably start by responding to peoples' points, not dismissing them! Also, what critics have said he's a good director? I've never read a single person who is vocally critical of him say "but to be fair he's a great director".
The reason why I didn't respond to these points is because I felt it would derail this topic and for most of them there really isn't a way to respond. I created it to talk about the Happening, not about Night and his past works - which people seem to constantly dwell on. Instead of focusing on the films as a whole a lot of people seem to attack Night personally because of his beliefs and the impression they get that he's a megalomaniac. Now he very well may be, but how does that negatively impact say, The Village for example, or Signs, or the Sixth Sense, or even this? (I can see how it would affect Lady in the Water, and people do have a point when they criticize him for playing the Christ-like role in that film), but apart from that I haven't sensed an aura of self-importance within the films. People seem to weave it into them and then bash his films for it, which I don't think is fair.
But I guess that's the way all topics of Shyamalan's films have fared on GW, so I guess that's the way the topic will head once again so I'll live with it and go with the flow.
shyamalan on the other hand really seems to think that he's an intelligent person, despite having exactly zero interesting thoughts in his head, and zero creative vision.
See above. I mean, it's one thing to say that a particular film wasn't interesting or creative but to completely shoot down a person saying that they don't have an ounce of creativity in them is kind of harsh. Do you honestly think he's worse than say, Uwe Boll in terms of creativity and directing?
he seems to really be striving for this STYLE of VERY POWERFUL DRAMA but he's a terrible screenwriter and apparently an even worse director because his characters ALWAYS manage to come off as artificial and painfully overacted.
Please elaborate. Which characters in particular did you find the most artificial and overacted? I'm most familiar with the Village since I've seen it multiple times, so I'd like to hear your thoughts on some of those characters. But if you'd like to talk about the characters from the other films that's great too. The only actor that I could see coming off as artificial in the Village was William Hurt - but then again, he's always so monotone in everything. I thought Bryce Dallas Howard did a phenomenal job playing as Ivy. She really portrayed herself as a confident young women despite a serious physical disadvantage. She is very outgoing, and while the film seems to follow the lead of Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) it is Ivy would takes hold of the reigns during the transition of direction in the film. People criticize this moment but I think it's the crucial point in the story and a natural transition. The story does tell of the relationship between Ivy and Lucius, and this handover is essential to keep the story progressing. In the case of Lucius his insecurities were very evident and I felt Joaquin's acting was well in-line with how an adult would behave had they grown up living in a sheltered society. Adrien Brody played Noah and I found that he was able to portray a mental illness with great accuracy. He didn't come off as just a crazy person though - his motives were clear when he well-knowingly commited acts of premediated crime, and you could see the wheels turning in his mind when he rocked in the rocking chair for example, or when he followed Ivy into the forest with the custome on.
visually his movies are completely worthless and i find it VERY hard to believe that the man has ever formally studied film at a university.
I find it hard to envision what completely worthless is exactly. If everything he's ever directed is visually worthless, what sort of films are visually worth something so that I could see what kind of "visual" scale you are using?
Gaming World Forums
The Happening