Xixax Film Forum

What about M. Night Shyamalan?  Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs.  These were all great movies and he deserves to be up here.

just because you don't see a director here doesn't mean that we think that he's horrible or he's a bad director.  it's because we haven't recieved his payment yet, okay?

sphinx, "payment" is such strong term. here at Xixax, we prefer "enormous velvet sack of bribe money."

donation guys... donation

Good point! What was I thinking?!

well, he doesn't deserve to be on there anyway.

He made one great movie, then remade it, then made a mediocre film in the same vein as his two previous films.

I'm not an M. Night fan. I think he got luck with Sixth Sense, and everything that has come after has been so-so at best. His visuals aren't anything special, and his stories are mediocre.

At least that's my two cents...

I havent really liked any of his movies, they are kind of bland. To me they were mediocre to good at best. I think Unbreakable is probably my favorite. I vote he NOT have his own section.

Although Sixth Sense seems dull now, everyone was in awe the first time they saw it.  Unbreakable was a great movie I thought and Signs, to me, dealt alot w/ fate which i greatly respect.  Anyways, i know hes not the best, but the point of a message board is to debate over whether he is good or not.  I'm just curious as to what other ppl think as well.

Quote from: XeditorAnyways, i know hes not the best, but the point of a message board is to debate over whether he is good or not.  I'm just curious as to what other ppl think as well.

ALL MESSAGE BOARDS WERE CREATED TO DEBAT M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN'S GREATNESS!!

just joking around, but do you think it is necessary for every good director to have a place on the board? I mean do we need a whole category to debate whether he is good or not? If the board were to have sections for every single director, it would be a bit overwhelming, a bit too much and posts might be spread to thin.

besides, he sucks.

Duck Sauce brings up a good point.

Maybe things will pick up when there are more than PTA-fan types visiiting the site. The sections for the other directors aren't exactly blowing up with activity.

I agree with Cecil, Sings was one of the stupidest movies I have ever seen. The aliens had legs strong enough to jump on to roofs, and were smart enough to figure out how to travel thousands of light years through space, but  damded if they couldn't break down a wooden door or the window. Plus their only weakness "water", thats all fine and dandy, but what about all the water in the atmosphere, and humidity. I put that movie up there with Dude Wheres my Car and Crossroads, and at least in Crossroads you got to see Britney Spears dancing around in her underwear.

O hell! What do I know?

i think he's very talented... have enjoyed his movies

If it makes you feel any better, I didnt mind Unbreakable.

Also, M. did not just come up w/ the water thing.  That is what many alien "nerds" actually believe.  He tried to put all of the superstition of aliens and crop circles together to make everyone happy.  If you noticed, in the movie they talk about the crop circles being possibly alien made plus the whole thing about 3 guys, some rope, and a board.  The movie really was not about whether aliens were real or not.  Hell it really had nothing to do at all w/ crop circles either....i mean they only showed like one in the whole movie.  It was about seeing the "signs" in life and using them later.  "Is it possible that there are no coincidences?"

The first time, in the theater, I was amazed.

A lot of emotion, etc.

At home, you can totally see exactly what he was trying to do, that's a bad thing, of course.

I respect a man who can consistantly make original films.   He made a film about fate through the device of aliens coming to earth.   And he did it well.   He's a talented writer/director.

hey it's "obsesses over screenplay format" man...

only joking...

nice to see you again man

I think he's damn good personally, with my favorite of his being Unbreakable.

I agree with you this time Pedro.

I enjoy M Night's films, but I'm not a huge fan of him.  I do appreciate that he is one of the new breed of long take directors (Wes, PTA, Spike Jonze, Tarantino, etc).  I've never seen any of his films more than once, but I did enjoy them.

I like his movies a lot and I think he seems like a really cool guy. My aunt and uncle live right near him in Philadelphia...I've seen his house. I hope to meet him someday.

I think he's really talented and unfortunately really full of himself. In interviews, he sounds like he thinks he'd God's gift to cinema.

NONETHELESS...

I think Signs is a masterpiece of sequential storytelling. You could take all the dialogue out of the movie and you'd still be able to follow it to a T. Visually, it's a perfect movie. I won't get in to all the logistical problems of the story, since there are plenty.

Give me The Birds over Signs anyday.

Any man who uses Tak Fujimoto as DP is cool in my book.

even on THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE and GRUMPIER OLD MEN?

i actually really hate m. night....i think he rather sucks. unbreakable was one of the honest to god worst movies i've ever seen... m. night doesnt seem able to stray from the exact same plot of every movie he writes...  and as if that's not enough m. night spawned a wretched stereotype for holllywood films to now consist of in every horror flick: a little child who sees and draws the darkness that grown ups are unable to notice.

i damn him to hell for that.

Hells YEAH.   Fujimoto's the man (next to Elswit).   Actually, this was meant to on the M. Night Shyamalan thread.   I clicked New Post instead of Reply.   D'oh.

Quote from: UglyApeDP

DP = Double Penetration. Right?

i think that there's something bigger going on in Signs that it makes you overlook the little flaws it has. he is truly a unique talent. the ending to the sixth sense was the first movie in which the ending in a movie blew me away.

boooooo m. night

the sixth sense was pretty good. unbreakable was flat-out stupid. signs was good only because it gave me the creeps.  :oops:

The Sixth Sense was pretty original for the time.  I think that proved to be part of the downfall of Unbreakable - people just got to expect that there would be some surprise or twist.  Signs was pretty decent - which is to say it was entertaining enough.

Quote from: av8raaronThe Sixth Sense was pretty original for the time.  I think that proved to be part of the downfall of Unbreakable - people just got to expect that there would be some surprise or twist.  Signs was pretty decent - which is to say it was entertaining enough.

Signs was very laughable, I like the parts where everything is explained so bluntly.... "you were the kids who was famous for hitting homeruns, only to quit playing baseball because..."

I really like his style...

mostly i see it this way :  He takes a film idea thats been done, and brings it down completely into a every-day kind of quality.  

Sixth Sense :  Afterlife, death, ghosts, etc. as REAL people would experience it, and not like most movies depict it (understatement!)

Unbreakable : Take a comic book story, about superheroes, but lets pose this as what would happen if there were REAL superheroes and super villains among us, they wouldnt obviously use purple lycra and whatnot.

Signs : An understated Alien INvasion movie thats not really about Aliens but about faith and signs and no coincidences, etc. Still, for an alien invasion movie, the movie is SO understated, that it creeps you out, because even if you dont believe in aliens, you DO get the feeling that IF there was ever a situation like that,  events like in SIGNS is what we would see, as oppossed to what happens in ID4...

I don't know if other people feel this way, but I saw "Signs" on the big screen twice and loved it. I then saw it on DVD and it didn't have as much power to me. The parts that were supposed to startle didn't startle.. It just didn't have that overall effect on me on a TV screen.

i wish he would try directing screenplays that he didn't write. i think he's a much more talented director than writer.

Quote from: cowboykurtisi wish he would try directing screenplays that he didn't write. i think he's a much more talented director than writer.

I feel the same way.  The dialogue in his films kinda makes me squirm.

Let me elaborate....

Sixth Sense is alright (not a must buy)...Unbreakable sucks (just saw it in its entirety)...Signs fucking rocks.

Quote from: Ravi

Quote from: cowboykurtisi wish he would try directing screenplays that he didn't write. i think he's a much more talented director than writer.

I feel the same way.  The dialogue in his films kinda makes me squirm.

I agree with all of that, however I liked the way he scripted "Signs".. it really worked for the film. Other than that, I'd rather see him solely direct.

M. Night Shamalan to Direct The Woods

The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs writer-director M. Night Shyamalan has made a deal for two more pics with Disney, says Variety.

The first film will be The Woods, a thriller to star Ashton Kutcher, Joaquin Phoenix and Kirsten Dunst. Scott Rudin and Sam Mercer will produce and shooting will begin in October in Philadelphia for a summer 2004 release.

Set in 1897, The Woods tells the story of a close-knit community with a mythical race of creatures residing in the woods around them.

Shyamalan said that he could conceivably make a movie elsewhere between The Woods and the second Disney project if another studio offered him an irresistible book adaptation. He considered it likely that he'll go right back to work in an environment he feels comfortable in. He already has sketched out what the followup film will be, but wouldn't divulge it.

Shyamalan wrote one role specifically for his Signs star Phoenix and wrote the lead with Dunst in mind.

Quote from: XeditorThe movie really was not about whether aliens were real or not.  Hell it really had nothing to do at all w/ crop circles either....i mean they only showed like one in the whole movie.  It was about seeing the "signs" in life and using them later.  "Is it possible that there are no coincidences?"

Signs = A Prayer for Owen Meany/Simon Birch + an invasion by moron aliens.

That said, I think M. Night is a good filmmaker.  His movies are compellingly made and presented, but ultimately they're illogical, overly obsessed with "the occult" (for lack of a better term), and silly.  They get less and less tolerable upon repeat viewings.

^Unbreakable definitely does. I hate it more everytime I see it. Signs never gets bad.

Let me just say though, The Woods sounds awesome. I love how open that plot description is....I hope it's as good as Signs.

Quote from: ebeaman^Unbreakable definitely does. I hate it more everytime I see it.

hehe. so do u generally watch movies over and over that u hate?

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH. I was hoping that Shyamalyn would continue with the supernatural/spooky/drama/thriller genre, and he is. I too like how he takes over-used themes and re-invents them. He re-invented the 'spook' story, superhero story and alien invasion story and most of all, makes all these silly plots almost believable. 'The Woods' sounds like its a new 'Signs' all lined up. But Ashton Kutcher as the dramatic lead?????

THE SIXTH SENSE was great, UNBREAKABLE was also.
But I think SIGNS was extremely boring and ridiculous.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F6305784817.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=59a7dcecb87c8e8b017565a23dc216eee29409ff)

Awesome.

i've seen bits and pieces of this movie. creepy...

Unbreakable was awsome.  So stop bashing it ass faces.

Quote from: BankyEdwardsUnbreakable was awsome.  So stop bashing it ass faces.

I didn't care for it. I've always found Shiyamalan to be just so-so; clearly talented, but... he just doesn't excite me.

Quote from: cbrad4d

Quote from: ebeaman^Unbreakable definitely does. I hate it more everytime I see it.

hehe. so do u generally watch movies over and over that u hate?

I keep watching it trying to like it again, like I did when I first saw it. Trying to get that first experience. It never works though, it just sucks now. Lol, kinda sounds like getting addicted to crack or something. Trying to imitate the first experience and always failing.

I don't know if I already said this but I think The Woods sounds really really cool.

I think Shyamalan is great, if you wanna know the truth.  Although some hate it, I absolutely loved SIGNS.  I saw it three times at the theatre.  That's crazy, I know, but I really loved it.  I watched it again on video and decided against purchasing it because it just didn't have the same effect.  I will never forget the way it made me feel when I saw it for the first time though.

Quote from: godardianI didn't care for it. I've always found Shiyamalan to be just so-so; clearly talented, but... he just doesn't excite me.

For the record, it's "Shyamalan".  Not being a jackass, I just letting you know.

Dunst Out of The Woods, Ron Howard's Daughter in
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ataleof2cities.com%2Fgraphics%2Fhs_bryce-howard.jpg&hash=f5371599e2f4e46e986aabd5f592afed441f7ade)

Bryce Dallas Howard, daughter of Oscar-winning director Ron Howard, has signed on to make her feature film debut with a starring role in director M. Night Shyamalan's The Woods for Disney.

Set in Pennsylvania during 1897, The Woods revolves around a close-knit community that lives with the frightening knowledge that a mythical race of creatures resides in the woods around them.

Kirsten Dunst previously had the offer for the role and was in talks to star. Instead, she has turned her attention to Elizabethtown, a project written and to be directed by Cameron Crowe. A domestic distributor is expected to be found shortly for the Crowe project, with production beginning in first quarter 2004.

Quote from: MacGuffinBryce Dallas Howard,

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyu.edu%2Fnyutoday%2FImages%2FRon-Howard.jpg&hash=9178026db2b237f8835ee32f3f12e34501889217)

uh.. no, peg.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: BankyEdwardsUnbreakable was awsome.  So stop bashing it ass faces.

I didn't care for it. I've always found Shiyamalan to be just so-so; clearly talented, but... he just doesn't excite me.

I saw the Sixth Sense in the theater and liked it.  Then I rented it and wathced it a few times to catch all the clues.  After that I wasn't compelled to watch it again.  Unbreakable had a somewhat interesting concept, but it just bugged me for some reason, particularly that damned shot in the beginning from the two seats in front of Bruce Willis and that woman.  The way the camera was looking through the space in the middle, it screamed to me, "Look how clever I am!"

Quote from: RaviUnbreakable had a somewhat interesting concept, but it just bugged me for some reason, particularly that damned shot in the beginning from the two seats in front of Bruce Willis and that woman.  The way the camera was looking through the space in the middle, it screamed to me, "Look how clever I am!"

hmm...i always liked that scene.

i can´t handle his movies. when you think about the sixth sense, you notice, that the logical thing is misssed and then, there´s no sense left at all. could never bring myself down to watch unbreakable. signs was better, because joaquin phoenix was in it.

Whenever I see his name in type, I invariably think to myself: "Midnight Sham-a-lam-a-ding-dong."  Everytime.

For serious.

Shyamalan & Fox 2000 Making a Piece of Pi
Source: The Hollywood Reporter

M. Night Shyamalan is in talks with Fox 2000 about adapting, directing and producing Life of Pi, a project based on the best-selling novel by Yann Martel.

The novel, which won the Man Booker Prize for 2002, is a magical adventure story centering on Pi Patel, the precocious son of a zookeeper. Residents of Pondicherry, India (Shyamalan's home town) the family decides to move to Canada, hitching a ride on a freighter. After a shipwreck, Pi is found adrift in the Pacific on a 26-foot lifeboat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan and a Bengal tiger.

The project is Shyamalan's first for another studio following four back-to-back films for Disney. He is set to next film The Village for the studio starting October 14.

Oh barf, I just read this news before coming here.  I'm so *thrilled* he's moving back into Stuart Little territory.

Sounds like a combination of "Lifeboat" and "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey."

Anyone read the book?

In case anyone is interested, on Sunday the 18th from 8pm - 11pm, the Sci-Fi channel will air a documentary called, "The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan" with the tag line: If you think his films are cloaked in secrecy, wait until you see his past.

Is that the one that started out as a doc stricktly on The Village, but quickly started delving deeper as the crew discovered what an ass Shyamalan was?

Quote from: WithnailIs that the one that started out as a doc stricktly on The Village, but quickly started delving deeper as the crew discovered what an ass Shyamalan was?

Yep.

Quote from: MacGuffinIn case anyone is interested, on Sunday the 18th from 8pm - 11pm, the Sci-Fi channel will air a documentary called, "The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan" with the tag line: If you think his films are cloaked in secrecy, wait until you see his past.

This ain't starting out too good. Apparently, M. Night, or just "Night," is a rabid dog or some feral beast that you can't make eye contact unless you have the go ahead. I believe you're actually supposed to bow, and if he bows back then it's okay for you to approach him.... :roll:

I don't really think there was any reason to worry about people thinking it was real. It's kind of obvious, like that one doc that Sci-Fi had on about the Blair Witch thing.

Quote from: ranemaka13I don't really think there was any reason to worry about people thinking it was real. It's kind of obvious, like that one doc that Sci-Fi had on about the Blair Witch thing.

Very obvious. I couldn't even finish it; once I saw Johnny Depp in on the 'joke', I changed it. It didn't need to be 3 hours. I guess they were trying to make "Night" mysterious, but they really made him come off as an arrogant, pompous asshole with a huge diva complex.

i started watching around the middle.
when he went out on the town he would get stopped by people all the time and the women would always say, "he's so fine."
it looks likes he's trying to be Hitchcock so bad, but he needs to study a little bit more.

what i mean by Hitchcock is............obviously his movies are very Hitch-y, but i also mean the way H promoted his films

I started watching about 90 minutes into it and watched it for a half-hour.  I don't know if I would have figured out it was fake before reading the article that said it was, but it looked very fake as I watched.  That one friend of his and that weird drowning story, trying to get into Night's medical records, etc., all were too over-the-top.  I couldn't watch 3 hours of this thing.

Quote from: RaviI couldn't watch 3 hours of this thing.

Well, I did. Most of it anyway.
Do I get a prize?!  :-D

Quote from: bigideasit looks likes he's trying to be Hitchcock so bad, but he needs to study a little bit more.

what i mean by Hitchcock is............obviously his movies are very Hitch-y, but i also mean the way H promoted his films

He'll never be Hitch.  Spielberg, yeah, Hitch, no.  He's strong with the visual stuff and he can set up a scare pretty well but the knack for storytelling isn't quite there.

And as for Night promoting his films... he wishes he could make as classic an ad for one of his films as Hitch's trailer for Psycho.  That Sci Fi moc was not even close, from what I saw of it.

Shyamalan takes 'Lady' to Warners
Source: Hollywood Reporter

M. Night Shyamalan will write and direct his next film, the fantasy thriller "Lady in the Water," for Warner Bros. Pictures.

Blinding Edge Pictures will produce, with Sam Mercer and Shyamalan serving as producers.

"Water" centers on the superintendent of an apartment building who finds a rare type of sea nymph swimming in the apartment pool.

Shyamalan has written and directed a series of blockbusters -- "The Sixth Sense," 'Unbreakable" and "Signs" -- for the Walt Disney Co. He had a two-picture, first-look deal with the studio, and his most recent feature, "The Village," was made under that deal. Disney and Shyamalan discussed "Lady," but the two decided mutually to part ways on the project.
 
"We have a terrific relationship with Night, and although we didn't agree creatively on this particular project, we look forward to working with him in the future," a company rep said.

Warners also would like to see the filmmaker remain in its fold in the future.

"I hope that it is the first of many outstanding films that Night makes at our studio," Warner Bros. president Alan Horn said in a statement.

Said Shyamalan: "Since we met a few years ago, Alan and Jeff (Robinov, Warners' president of production) have gone out of their way to offer me the best on their studio slates time after time. I felt their personal connection to my movies. 'Lady in the Water' is a personal movie with a big idea, and it seems just perfect for Warner Bros. I'm thrilled they responded to the story, and we all can't wait to get started."

The film will be shot in Philadelphia, where Shyamalan has made all of his movies. Casting is under way, and production is set to begin in August for a July 21, 2006, release.

Wow, this really must suck (or be totally nuts) if Disney's given up on Night.

That's the weirdest fucking idea.

Is it possible for Night to come up with a movie idea that doesn't hinge on some stupid gimmick?

That was a dumb thing to say  :yabbse-thumbup:  :yabbse-thumbup:

Night makes B-movies that have the production value of A-movies and a patina of seriousness that is fake.  He is basically a 12 year old in a 30 year old's body, a guy who never outgrew comic books and Twilight Zone reruns.  At least Steven Spielberg sometimes makes movies for grown-ups like Saving Private Ryan.

haha, I liked how your counter example to Night Shamalamasingsong's childishness was SPEILBERG's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
"Christina Aguellera's got no class!  At least Paris Hilton dresses grown up!"

Quote from: soixanteNight makes B-movies that have the production value of A-movies and a patina of seriousness that is fake.  He is basically a 12 year old in a 30 year old's body, a guy who never outgrew comic books and Twilight Zone reruns.  At least Steven Spielberg sometimes makes movies for grown-ups like Saving Private Ryan.

While I think there is nothing wrong in general with the "cinema of the adult child" as it were, I have to agree with you in this case.  Shyamalan really does need to grow up.  Kind of like how DePalma does his best work when he's not making films for 14 year old boys who have just recently discovered boobies.  

It's too bad that Life of Pi never panned out for Night.  He could have done something great with that.

Shyamalan Casts Lady
Giamatti, Howard join M. Night's next.

M. Night Shyamalan is casting Village actress Bryce Dallas Howard and Sideways star Paul Giamatti in his next flick, Lady in the Water, according to today's Variety.

The film, billed as a fantasy thriller, tells the story of an apartment building superintendent who finds a water nymph in the building's swimming pool. Giamatti would play the super and Howard would play the nymph. Interesting concept... more details to come on that.

Lady in the Water was the second in a two-picture deal for Shyamalan at Disney, but the studio passed. Night subsequently took the flick to Warner Bros. and they snatched it up. Warner Bros. president Alan Horn said last week that he's hoping Lady in the Water will be the first of many flicks that Shyamalan  makes at the studio.  A Disney rep commented that, despite passing on Lady, they've still got a great relationship with Night and that they "look forward to working with him in the future."

Bryce Dallas Howard, who starred in Shyamalan's The Village, next appears in Manderlay from Lars Von Trier. She's also set to star in Kenneth Branagh's As You Like It and Warner Independent Pictures' Mary Queen of Scots.

Warner Bros. is aiming for a July 21, 2006 release for Lady in the Water. If final negotiations with the actors go as planned the film could start shooting in August.

Shyamalan: Day-and-date 'life or death to me'
By Gregg Goldstein, Hollywood Reporter

ORLANDO -- Director M. Night Shyamalan threw down the gauntlet Thursday night at ShowEast, appearing at the exhibitors convention to speak out against shrinking theatrical windows and rejecting the notion of simultaneous day-and-date releases of new films in theaters and on home video, cable and video-on-demand.

In an interview before his speech, Shyamalan said he planned to ask theater owners at ShowEast's Final Night Banquet and Award Ceremony "for zero tolerance on this -- to say, 'If you're gonna release a movie in another medium, then you're not going to get into our theaters' -- because at the end of the day, they hold all the cards."
 
Speaking from his Philadelphia-area office shortly before leaving for Orlando, the director said: "I'm going to stop making movies if they end the cinema experience. If there's a last film that's released only theatrically, it'll have my name on it. This is life or death to me.

"If you tell audiences there's no difference between a theatrical experience and a DVD, then that's it, game's over, and that whole art form is going to go away slowly," Shyamalan added. "Movies will end up being this esoteric art form, where only singular people will put films out in a small group of theaters."

While such chains as Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Theatres, Loews Cineplex and Cinemark USA already have adopted a "zero-tolerance" stance, while companies including 2929 Entertainment and Rainbow Media Holdings have begun to experiment with simultaneous releases on various platforms, Shyamalan also hoped to take his message to mom-and-pop theater owners, and, indirectly, to the studios as well.

He planned to set forth a two-pronged argument.

First, Shyamalan said, "Story is king. Storytelling is an ancient art form that has always been told to a group, and the reason is that we need to see the story through each others' point of view, like sitting next to someone whose sense of humor is different than yours. That's the way we grow. We can't disregard the effect we have on each other when we see a movie. I make them for a room full of 500 strangers, not a singular individual who only has a life experience like mine. That would be asinine."

Second, he proposed an economic motivation. "I'm out to prove that not only is it the morally right thing to do, but it's the financially right thing to do," he said. "Even if you didn't go see a film, and I went and told you about it, you now benefit from my group experience. Films have to exist in the world in their ideal form before you can exploit them ... (so) if chewing gum with a movie's logo makes more money than the movie, don't get seduced by the chewing gum."

Although he has made most of his films for Walt Disney Studios, Shyamalan is completing "Lady in the Water" for Warner Bros. But he attributed the studio shift to creative differences that occurred before Disney CEO Robert Iger proposed, in an analysts' call in August, releasing DVDs during the theatrical window.

Shyamalan said such suggestions are "totally misguided and ridiculous. If you had 12 great stories to tell, you would be cherishing those four months (during which a movie screens theatrically). ... Rather than the studios' mandate being, 'We shouldn't go into a $200 million production when we don't have a screenplay,' it's, 'Let's cut the theatrical experience.' That's crazy."

Shyamalan first took up the cause of preserving current exhibition patterns at the annual DGA Feature Directors Night dinner in June in New York, attended by more than 50 helmers.

"I heard this idea (of collapsing windows) being promoted, and it really, really upset me," he said. "I felt such an apathy (in the room), like, 'Oh, it's inevitable.' No, it's not. If it were, then a penguin documentary ('March of the Penguins') wouldn't make $75 million in theaters.

"We have these business guys coming in, many of whom haven't been part of the industry, saying, 'This is how it's gonna be.' And then you had a few (directors') voices in support of the experiment. And I went 'whoa, whoa, whoa -- this is sacred to me. I'm not gonna let the theatrical experience just go away like this.' I made it clear that night that we're all losing faith and that we don't have to stand by and let this art form be rolled over."

His stance has pitted him against Steven Soderbergh, who has committed to making six films for 2929 Entertainment for simultaneous release on various platforms. The directors spoke privately at the DGA dinner, and, Shyamalan said, "We both love cinema. I love that guy; he was very gracious during our conversation, and it was very eye-opening to have it. I don't know if he thinks I'm naive about my position. I just feel this idea of releasing everything at the same time is gonna kill us."

Soderbergh, who's filming "The Good German" for Warners, was unavailable for comment.

Although advocates of shrinking windows have argued that it will help to cut down piracy, Shyamalan predicted that it would have the opposite effect "by giving pirates a perfect copy of a film in stores at 9 a.m. on the day it opens." Comparing theatrical showings to music concerts, he added, "The theatrical experience is the only thing that can't be pirated or duplicated, and it's different every single time."

He also speculated that some artists might be warming to the idea of simultaneous releases because they think it will lead to an new infusion of capital, but he said "the theory that there would be more money to go around ... is of no importance to me whatsoever. And no one will claim it's important to them, but that's one of the real factors."

Shyamalan has found support for his position at Warners. Said president of domestic distribution Dan Fellman: "The downturn in boxoffice is not related entirely to video release dates. Boxoffice is historically content-driven, and as an industry we fell short this year as a result." But, he noted, simultaneous theatrical/DVD release dates "are not going to happen at Warner Bros."

The director originally planned to join John Fithian, National Association of Theatre Owners president, onstage Tuesday but was forced to delay his appearance when Hurricane Wilma interrupted air service. Beyond making his appeal to exhibitors, Shyamalan said he has no plans to work in concert with NATO on the issue.

But as a measure of his commitment to the cause, he added, "I just finished shooting ('Lady in the Water' on Friday). I'm exhausted. My family hasn't seen me. I hate flying -- I feel like I'm gonna die when I get on a plane -- but I'm flying down to Orlando. It's that important to me."

After explaining his theory of the "collective soul" that can be found among a movie audience, he said, "The ideal form is the movie theatrical experience. If they try to convince us otherwise, they are lying." Acknowledging that he had benefited from DVDs, he added, " 'The Sixth Sense' DVD bought my house. You know what? Take my house," a remark that drew a big cheer from the crowd.

"I don't believe this is inevitable," he said to the exhibitors of the threat of shrinking windows, but, he warned, "If this goes through, you know theaters are closing down. It's going to crush you guys."

At the end of his speech, the audience rose and gave Shyamalan a standing ovation.

i never thought i'd say it, but i agree with shyamalan

Well, he's definitely right about piracy. But, I can't help but think about how much Soderbergh loves movies and what he must think about this. He obviously thinks that it wouldn't do so much hurt to the industry. I think Shyamalan's got a point to an extent, maybe in principle, but there's that thing that Soderbergh isn't the devil and can't be completely wrong.

I don't know.

A big part of watching a movie is the experience of seeing it onscreen with other people.  However, factors that impede this experience have been increasingly popping up.  More ads before the feature, mediocre presentation, cell phones, high cost of tickets, etc.  For the cost of two tickets to a movie, you can buy the DVD outright in the first week of release.  Its up to the audiences to decide whether the benefits of going to the theater outweigh the annoyances.  It all comes down to content, ultimately.  Are people willing to see a given film despite the ticket prices and the ads and the cell phones?

Not everyone has a giant front projection system in their house, of course, but you can cheaply buy your own Dolby Digital and DTS systems and enjoy pretty good sound at home, even if it is a home-theater-in-a-box.  Of course, if you have an HDTV, the video quality will be even better.

There's nothing like watching a good comedy in a packed theater with a responsive crowd.

Quote from: RaviNot everyone has a giant front projection system in their house, of course, but you can cheaply buy your own Dolby Digital and DTS systems and enjoy pretty good sound at home, even if it is a home-theater-in-a-box.

you can?  where?

The good thing about what Soderbergh is doing is allowing for the hard to come by films to really come by quickly to some of us. I can't tell you how many films I know I don't have a shot in the world to see until it comes out on video. I don't think shyamalan has anything to worry about. His films will be seen on opening weekend and as much as theaters are the ideal, they are impossible for many people. Great art films are almost as restricted in viewing as Broadway shows. Soderbergh's idea, if any anything, gets these films a better release.

I'm surprised i'm agreeing with M. Night too.  This is the first i've heard of "closing the window," and I think its an awful idea. Especially if its an idea that they think will stop pirating.  And financially I don't understand any of their reasoning.  If a movie I want to see comes out in a theatre near me I'm going to go see it in theatres and then highly anticipate the dvd release.  Plus who wants to blind buy every movie they want to see?


But i do think M. Night is stupid for thinking that vowing not to make any more movies is a great threat to anyone.

Films will never leave the theater as we know it. Americans won't stand for movies going straight to DVD. It ruins the entire cinematic experience and fucks with the escape that you simply can't re-create at home.

Quote from: MyxoFilms will never leave the theater as we know it. Americans won't stand for movies going straight to DVD. It ruins the entire cinematic experience and fucks with the escape that you simply can't re-create at home.

yes, but as  home theatre systems get better and become more common, the annoyances of going to the theatre may start to outweigh the good things about it.  so yeah, i think a lot of people would rather stay at home.  i dont think its going to happen totally, but the shortened dvd window has definitely decreased my theatre going when i know that 4 months isnt that long to wait for something i'm on the line about seeing.  so in a way they're cannibalizing themselves there.  the other factor is mostly the goddamn price being mostly over 10$ with no matinees.  if movies were 7 bucks, i'd see everything in the theatre but when it costs like $22 i just can't justify it if the movie might suck.

Quote from: modageif movies were 7 bucks, i'd see everything in the theatre but when it costs like $22 i just can't justify it if the movie might suck.

I've always thought we should change cities. I've seen your favorite movies this season and I'll gladly pay the extra money for better selection. I'm seeing the mainstream works for $5.50 a ticket and thats a night showing.

Quote from: modagei dont think its going to happen totally, but the shortened dvd window has definitely decreased my theatre going when i know that 4 months isnt that long to wait for something i'm on the line about seeing.  so in a way they're cannibalizing themselves there. the other factor is mostly the goddamn price being mostly over 10$ with no matinees. if movies were 7 bucks, i'd see everything in the theatre but when it costs like $22 i just can't justify it if the movie might suck.

Also, repeat business is lost. I saw Revenge of the Sith, had my big screen experience, but because of, as mod mentioned, price, etc. I only saw it once. I knew the DVD would be out by Christmas so I could rewatch it again again. When Matrix came out, I must have seen it about 8 times in theaters, not knowing when a DVD would be released.

its admirable to see someone of his stature fighting for integreity over commerce.

Someone had mentioned soderbergh's support of this platform release bullshit, as if his opinion alone validates the change - I don't think Soderbergh has ever been shy about being a businessman who makes movies (instead of vice-versa). I think his decisions start from a business angle(which is expected when operating within a studio deal, but it doesnt mean his choices/outlook is virtuous.

regardless of one's opinon of shamalamadingdong's films, they have to at least give him respect for his efforts to hold the torch on this subject(there are too many filmmakers that are allowing the business minds to steamroll the system, with little to no resistance.).

Who here saw Jurassic Park on opening weekend?

Can you imagine that film going straight to DVD?

...

Shyamalan gets ShoWest directing nod

M. Night Shyamalan will be honored as ShoWest Director of the Year at the closing-night ceremonies of the exhibitors convention, which will be held March 16 at the Bally's and Paris hotels in Las Vegas. Shyamalan drew applause from exhibitors in Orlando in October when he spoke at the ShowEast convention, passionately arguing in favor of the theatrical motion picture experience and rejecting shrinking theatrical windows as well as simultaneous day-and-date releases across competing platforms. ShoWest co-managing director Mitch Neuhauser called Shyamalan "a filmmaker whose vision and originality in storytelling changes the way audiences engage in movies; he constantly surprises, impresses and satisfies moviegoers."

Quote from: MacGuffin on February 17, 2006, 12:28:54 AM
"a filmmaker whose vision and originality in storytelling changes the way audiences engage in movies; he constantly surprises, impresses and satisfies moviegoers."

:saywhat:

:ponder:

really?

a good surprise would be that Lady In The Water goes straight to video.  actually M. is the strongest proponent for NO theatrical release!  betcha didn't see THAT coming did you?

cause he always has a twist ending.

Quote from: soixante on March 24, 2005, 03:15:34 PM
Night makes B-movies that have the production value of A-movies and a patina of seriousness that is fake.  He is basically a 12 year old in a 30 year old's body, a guy who never outgrew comic books and Twilight Zone reruns.  At least Steven Spielberg sometimes makes movies for grown-ups like Saving Private Ryan.

That is true about Spielberg, after 20 years of making films, but M. Night has made, what, about 4 movies?  That would be still be around Close Encounters territory. 

I wasn't real fond of The Village, but didn't hate it with a passion either.  I really liked The Sixth Sense and parts of Signs.

Anyway, I am really glad that he's sticking up for the theatrical experience.  I have no problem with people who prefer fullscreen and DVD, but I can't stand the thought of 80 percent of major motion pictures not even being shown theatrically, which is what would happen if this multi-platform release becomes the norm.  It would start as DVD and theatre at the same time for most movies, then devolve into DVD and theatre for major 200-million-dollar speciall effects films and DVD-only for everything else. 

give people a reason to see a film in the theatre and they'll go.  rather than defending the theatrical experience, he might want to put his efforts with james cameron and start looking for ways to make the theatre an EXPERIENCE again. 

Quote from: modage on February 25, 2006, 05:12:56 PM
he might want to put his efforts with james cameron and start looking for ways to make the theatre an EXPERIENCE again. 

Free small soda with every ticket?

If Night can eliminate ads from theaters and increase the quality of the projection and sound, I'll see his movies twice.

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."

sounds like a reasonable charge with potentially juicy accusations only to be held back by a director who talks too much about himself and his feelings instead.  I hope I'm wrong though.  I'm hope it's just a fun, brutal, relentless attack on the buffoons at Disney.  probably won't be, because Shamalayan doesn't even see the evils of the current studio system.

I have limited sympathy for the plight of Night.  After falling out with Disney, he was able to go to Warners and get them to pony up 60 million or whatever.  He was able to make the film he wanted to make, for the budget he wanted.  Many struggling filmmakers will never see that sort of financial support.  There are many established directors who have seen pet projects put into turnaround, and never get off the ground at all.

I'm also wondering -- could it be possible that the Disney executives were right?  That's the other side of the story.

no way.  they are always wrong.

A Good Night for Harry Potter?
Source: ComingSoon

During the press day for Lady in the Water, ComingSoon.net asked writer-director M. Night Shyamalan whether his new studio partner Warner Bros. has tried to convince him to direct one of the last two "Harry Potter" movies. It certainly would be an interesting thing to see a filmmaker mostly known for directing movies from his own scripts to adapt the adventures of one of the most popular literary characters.

"You know, that Harry Potter dance has gone on a long time," he told us. "The problem is that it is a living breathing thing now, all by itself. When it comes over to my camp, it needs to be kind of handed over, adoption papers and everything. That's a tricky move.

"I haven't met with J.K. [Rowling]," he continued. "The first one was offered to me, but that conflicted with 'Unbreakable,' which was unfortunate. I would definitely, but I think probably before that I would adapt a book. I've gotten close a few times to adapting books."

Sink or Swim
How writer-director M. Night Shyamalan lost a studio and found a leading man for ''Lady in the Water'': An Entertainment Weekly exclusive book excerpt from ''The Man Who Heard Voices'' by Michael Bamberger

In 2004, M. Night Shyamalan, a two-time Academy Award nominee for The Sixth Sense who went on to write and direct Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village, invited writer Michael Bamberger to follow the creation of his newest movie. Lady in the Water would be an unusual dark fantasy with elements of both children's stories and horror movies about an apartment superintendent who discovers a mermaid-like woman in the building's swimming pool. The result, Bamberger's book The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale, offers an unusually intimate look at the driven, ambitious filmmaker's combination of brash confidence and gnawing insecurity, as well as his moviemaking process, decision by decision, blow by blow. At the time Bamberger started his book, neither he nor Shyamalan knew that the first of those blows would come quickly and unexpectedly — when Shyamalan finished the sixth draft of his Lady in the Water in February 2005, and arranged to have it delivered to the top brass at Disney, which had made his last four movies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night, who thrived on tension, chose a date: The three key Disney executives would get the script on Sunday, February 13. Paula, Night's assistant, would fly from Philadelphia to Los Angeles that morning with copies of the script and hand-deliver them to the homes of Dick Cook, the chairman of the Walt Disney Motion Picture Group; Oren Aviv, the head of marketing (Disney did not make movies that it didn't know how to sell); and most significantly, Nina Jacobson, the Disney president. Nina's tastes largely dictated what kinds of movies Disney made. Later that evening, on an itinerary established weeks earlier, Paula would collect Cook's script, then Aviv's the next morning. Night wanted to know where they were at all times. Nobody kept Night's scripts for very long.

Except for Nina. Because she had worked with Night from what Disney saw as the start — The Sixth Sense — Night granted her one special dispensation. She could keep the script. Night trusted her.

Because of the twist ending to The Sixth Sense, and the surprises in his other three movies, Night had to keep his scripts under tight control. The script for Unbreakable had been leaked on the Internet months before the movie came out. Night was determined that would not happen again, and it didn't. Secretiveness had become part of how he marketed himself. When Paula used Night's copier that could handle only twenty pages at a time, each page was stamped with a name or a serial number superimposed in large light gray type over the text. If this established Night as untrusting, which it did, it also established him as mysterious and neurotic, and he was okay with that, because it was true and because it served him well.

There was another advantage to having Paula hand-deliver the new script on a Sunday. It promised his script immediate and undivided attention on a day of the week when phones rang less, when time slowed down, when people were closer to their emotions. He was comfortable getting in the middle of people's weekends. He felt that the reading of his script should not be considered work. It should add to the weekend's pleasure.

Nina read the sixth draft of Lady in the Water that night, after her kids had gone to sleep and the house was quiet. On four previous occasions she had sat down to read original M. Night Shyamalan scripts, and all four times the scripts had been well-crafted, unique, and interesting. The scripts didn't have any big plot holes. He always worked them over hard before sending them out. They typically contained little direction, or notes for the director — for himself — about how the scenes should be shot. There wasn't much exposition. The story was told through the dialogue, in what was said, and often in what was not said. Reading Night's scripts was like reading a play. She knew Lady in the Water, whatever it was, wouldn't be a mess.

There was an early, funny scene in Spanish, the fastest-growing language in America. Nina was fine with that. The protagonist, Cleveland Heep, had a stutter. She made a note of it — two hours of stuttering could make an audience insane. The beautiful wet pool creature, the role slated for Bryce Dallas Howard, showed up on page 15. Bryce was not a star, nobody would come to a movie because she was playing the female lead, but she was pretty, talented, inexpensive, and Night had loved working with her on The Village. There was a character named Reggie who worked out only the top half of his body, and Nina found him amusing.

And then she started to have problems. She wasn't yet on page 20 of a 136-page script.

There was a scary-looking creature, sort of a mutation between a dog and a hyena, with sharp wet teeth and spiky grass for fur.

And Night wants this to be a Disney-branded movie? Too scary.

There was a fivesome of smokers, and even though they smoked only cigarettes, it was clear they'd logged a lot of hours, if not years, with their mouths on bongs.

Not Disney.

The film critic in the movie, Mr. Farber, was attacked.

Not smart.

Then there was the role Night wanted to play himself, Vick Ran, a stymied writer with a cloudy future, living with his sister and carrying the movie's message. It was an enormous supporting role, the second-biggest male role in the movie, and Night had never had a role nearly this big.

Should the audience see that much of Night?

Then there was the enormous Korean party girl, Lin Lao Choi, who explained the mythic tale that was the backbone of the entire script. She did her explaining not through action, the holy grail of modern moviemaking, but with words.

Way too much exposition.

With Lin Lao and her invented language came Nina's biggest problem with the script. She didn't understand the myth.

Nina read it once and then read it again. She picked up a phone and called her boss.

''I don't get it,'' she said.

''Neither do I,'' Dick Cook said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next day — Valentine's Day — one of Shyamalan's agents, Jeremy Zimmer of United Talent Agency, drove to the writer-director's farmhouse outside of Philadelphia to give him Disney's uncertain reaction. The following evening, the three Disney executives flew East to have dinner with Shyamalan and Zimmer at the Rittenhouse Hotel's restaurant Lacroix.

A uniformed doorman opened the door for Night and said, ''Good evening, Mr. Shyamalan.'' He said it easily, too easily, as if they saw each other daily. The doorman's greeting confused Night. It made him feel paranoid.

What does he know that I don't know?

From the start, the dinner was a disaster. The tables were too close together; Night felt that other diners could hear their conversation. The service was slow. There were many courses with tiny portions. Night was not touching his food. The waiters hovered excessively.

Nina and Night did most of the talking. They were sitting next to each other, with Zimmer on Night's left. Usually, Night found Nina's screechy voice amusing, but this night it was only grating. She sounded like the adults in the Charlie Brown TV movies: wha-wha-wha-wha-wha. Her problems with the script came spewing out of her without a filter. The boundary between candor and anger, Night couldn't identify it.

You said it was funny; I didn't laugh... 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... You've got a writer who wants to change the world but doesn't, but somebody reads the writer and does? Don't get it... What's with the names? Scrunt? Narf? Tartutic? Not working... What's with all these rules? Don't get it... Lin Lao Choi — and good luck finding a six-foot Korean girl — is going to explain all these rules and all these words? Not buying it. Not getting it. Not working.

She went on and on.... Night was waiting for her to say she didn't like the font Paula had printed it in.

The attack left Night feeling euphoric. He felt like a boxer, adrenaline coursing through him after getting hit. He came out flailing. He started with a broad attack, then planned to go into a line-by-line defense and conclude with soaring praise for his own work. He didn't want to have to do it, but who else would? He went right into Johnnie Cochran mode, which suited him. He did an excellent and funny, ''if the glove don't fit, you must acquit'' bit.

He was just about to shift gears when he looked at them carefully, one by one. He saw nothing. They weren't engaging him the way an opponent is supposed to. There was no boxing match going on. They were looking at him like he was on another team.

And as Night looked at them, he realized this wasn't a dinner meeting. It was an intervention, as if they were meeting with an alcoholic who needed to get into a treatment program. Their purpose was to talk some sense into him. Get on the team, buddy — we can all make lots of money!

Night felt sorry for them. They felt emboldened by The Village, by their belief that had Night only listened to them, that movie could have earned double or triple or quadruple the money it made.

''What are you saying, Nina? What are you saying the script needs? Three weeks? Three months?''

Nina said nothing. Her face said, Not three weeks, not three months, not ever.

''You're saying I've lost my mind.''

''No, we're not.''

''Yes, yes, you are.''

Night went into a long monologue of everything he had written as an adult, as a writer-for-hire, as a ghostwriter, as the writer of four original screenplays for Disney. He cited dollar figures, how the movies had ranked for their studios. When he got to the four Disney movies he had made, it was pow! whack! zoom! bop! The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, The Village.

''Two of the four I made for Disney are among the largest-grossing movies of all time. But now — now I've written Lady in the Water, and I've lost my mind. Suddenly, I can't write anymore. I've lost my touch, gone crazy.''

Nina said, ''You know we had our problems with The Village.''

That was true. But Night had always thought they let him do his thing, as a writer and a director, because he had earned the right to do so. Now he was hearing something different. He was hearing: We didn't put our foot down last time, and we regret it; we're not going to make that mistake again.

He had known these people for years. He had always liked them; he had always thought they were smart. He knew they were good people. But a different kind of group thinking had taken hold of them. All of a sudden they looked like strangers.

It seemed to Night that they didn't know how they wanted the meeting to end. He couldn't understand why they didn't come in and say, ''Help us understand this movie.'' Had that been the first thing said at dinner, the whole night would have played differently.

He dug deep and said something he didn't know he still had in him: ''I'm going to have to decide whether I make this movie at all, or whether I make it elsewhere.''

Nobody responded.

Finally, Zimmer said to the Disney trio, ''We're thankful for the truthful response you've given us.''

Night didn't look at Zimmer. ''I don't agree with that. I didn't think it was a truthful response.'' He felt Nina had been preconditioned not to like the script, that she hadn't given it a truthful reading. He had put his heart into that script, he had put his soul and his dreams and his faith into it. It had more of a big idea — more of him — than anything he had ever written. It deserved more than we don't get it.

''There's a certain amount of space you have to give an artist, and the problem here is that you haven't given me that space. I don't have any room to move. You like the side of me that does conventional things that make money, and you don't like the side that does unconventional things.''

Everything was out now, including Night's unhappiness. The dinner came to a quiet close. Night tossed his spotless napkin on the table. The check came and Zimmer paid. The fivesome headed to the elevator.

''You three go down,'' Cook said. ''I want to talk to Night for a minute.''

Soon they were alone outside the elevator.

Cook told Night he could still make the movie at Disney, even if the executives didn't understand it. He said, ''Prove us wrong, Night. Just make the movie for us. 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.''

''I can't do that,'' Night answered. Spend a year of his life trying to prove them wrong? No. What a waste of energy. Their lack of faith in Lady in the Water would infect the whole project.

''C'mon.''

''I want to thank you for six great years and four great movies,'' Night said.

An elevator came, and they rode down together in silence. There were no hugs and there were no Hollywood loveyas. The three Disney people walked together past the doorman and out of the hotel and into a waiting car. As they left, Night was crying. He was crying because he liked them as people and he knew he would not see them again, not as his partners. He was crying because he was scared, because there was a big part of him that did want to simply get along with everybody, to do something safe, to be successful. He was crying because he knew they could be right. He was crying because in rejecting that script, they were rejecting him.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rather than throwing his script away or putting it on the open market, Shyamalan asked Zimmer to take the movie to Warner Bros., whose entertainment president, Alan Horn, quickly agreed to make Lady in the Water. Bryce Dallas Howard was still set to play the title role, but the movie had yet to sign its male lead.

After the meeting at Alan Horn's house, Night was desperate to reach Paul Giamatti, but could not find him. Not in his apartment in Brooklyn, not on his cell phone. When he finally did reach him, all Paul said was that he hadn't read the script yet.

Night's heart sank. Reading the script wasn't a major time commitment. You could do it in 90 minutes, less if you liked it a lot or not at all. But he buried his disappointment and summoned his inner salesman.

''Listen, dude, I wrote this role for you, man,'' Night said. ''I really want you to do it, and so does everybody at Warner Bros. I gave them all sorts of opportunities to tell me they didn't want you, and they said, 'No, we think he's great. We want him.''' Paul said some noncommittal thing and the conversation was over.

A week passed, Night had still not heard back. No news was bad news.

One day in that period, I was at the farm for lunch. I mentioned that I had seen The Upside of Anger, with Joan Allen and Kevin Costner.

''How's he look?''

''You know, he's got a little paunch. He's losing his hair. He looks kind of beat up. He looks good.''

''I've always liked him,'' Night said. ''I met him once. He punched me in the arm and said, 'I know you.' I liked that. Very endearing... Life's caught up with him. He doesn't have that invincibility anymore. Damn! Jose [Rodriguez, an associate producer on Lady], don't tell them anything's up, but call Costner's guy and see what his availability is.''

Twenty minutes later, Jose had an answer for Night. ''He's got an independent movie that has him tied up for the first two weeks in August, and then he's available after that.''

Suddenly, the man who hears voices was hearing voices.

Maybe it's not Paul. Maybe it's Costner. Costner has warmth. Costner grabbed my elbow. Cleveland Heep has to have warmth. Paul hasn't even read the script. Does that mean anything? My God — is there someone I can talk to beside myself?

He asked Paula to get Sam Mercer, Night's producing partner, on the phone.

Night's first words to him were, ''I'm starting to have second thoughts about Paul.''

It was startling. What about, Listen, dude, I wrote this role for you, man? His decisiveness had been overwhelming. The voices were loud and clear. They were telling him that he didn't need Tom Cruise or even Tom Hanks. Night wanted the guy with the meager beard who played the writer in Sideways. And now that actor didn't seem to want Night. The traffic wasn't moving two ways, like it was supposed to. As Night was flooring it toward Giamatti, Giamatti should have been coming straight at him. And he wasn't. He was...nowhere.

Night couldn't see the reality, that Paul Giamatti was an actor in demand with a lot going on. Night wasn't accustomed to dealing with real-world intrusions. You were supposed to get sucked up into Night's world and to hell with everything else. But that wasn't happening.

''What do you think about Costner?'' Night asked Sam Mercer.

It wasn't common for Night to ask Sam creative questions. But he needed someone to turn to, and Sam was there. ''Is Costner too graceful for this role? You believe Paul as a building super. But this is a super who is not a super, you know? Waiting like this for an answer from Paul, it makes me wonder. Maybe he just doesn't want to do it.''

Night went outside, collar up against the wind, alone with about the biggest casting question of his career.

One of the things Sam did for Night was have the conversations Night didn't want to have or didn't know how to have. He protected Night from some of the harsher realities of moviemaking: negotiating with union bosses, landlords, agents, managers. Sam was a fixer. He could say, to anyone, ''Are you in or are you out?'' He didn't brag to Night about his methods. He did the opposite. He protected Night from them.

Several days after Night had asked Sam about Kevin Costner, Night got a call from Paul Giamatti.

''Dude, I am so Lady,'' Giamatti said. This was in March, five months before shooting was supposed to begin, an eon in moviemaking.

''Stop it,'' Night said playfully.

''I'm telling ya — I am.''

Night didn't need to ask Paul what had taken him so long. The thing was, he was in. And for a moment Night was healed.

Okay.  First off, even though the Disney folks didn't believe in the project, they still offered him a sixty million dollar budget and total creative control, and then when he decides to take the movie elsewhere, it's immediately snatched up by Warner Brothers... and they're trying to pass this off as some sort of hard-luck tale of the visionary artist struggling to make his dreams reality?  Jesus Christ!  I've had a harder time taking a crap in the morning than M Night Shyamalan had getting this movie made!  The only thing missing from that story was Night complaining about how his solid gold shoes were too tight, and his hovercar was running low on dreams, which it uses for fuel.

The next person I read about who gets offered sixty million dollars to make their movie, and then whose response is to cry because "they didn't believe in him", gets kicked in the nuts.  Swiftly and repeatedly, with solid gold shoes.  Wingtips.

And man, after this whole story, if the movie ends up sucking, M Night Shyamalan's really going to look like a dick.

Quote from: polkablues on July 12, 2006, 01:44:27 AM
I've had a harder time taking a crap in the morning than M Night Shyamalan had getting this movie made!

polkablues i am concerned, please elaborate on this problem in greater detail.

Quote from: Pubrick on July 12, 2006, 11:23:04 PM

Quote from: polkablues on July 12, 2006, 01:44:27 AM
I've had a harder time taking a crap in the morning than M Night Shyamalan had getting this movie made!

polkablues i am concerned, please elaborate on this problem in greater detail.

I think the main problem is that Disney didn't really believe I could do it.

Career Intervention: M. Night Shyamalan
He's a great talent, but has arrogance become a problem? It's time for some tough love.
Source: Newsweek

July 24, 2006 issue - The Crisis: He wrote and directed "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs." His films have grossed $1.6 billion worldwide. Now, judging from conversations with impartial observers around Hollywood, the perception is that success has gone to his head. "It feels like the entire town is rooting for him to fail," says one studio exec. "Is there a 12-step program for egos?" On the eve of "Lady in the Water," M. Night Shyamalan has cooperated with a book that details his arguments with Disney president Nina Jacobson. She advised him, for instance, not to cast himself as a visionary writer whose book will change the world. Shyamalan ignored her, and made the movie at Warner Bros. "He has completely burned a bridge at Disney," says a top agent. NEWSWEEK, some say, is partly to blame for Shyamalan's arrogance. "When your fine magazine proclaimed him 'The Next Spielberg' on the cover, this was all fated," says a studio exec.

Since that article four years ago, Shyamalan's movies—namely "The Village" and "Lady in the Water"—have certainly become more artificial and less engrossing. The success of "The Sixth Sense" gave him total creative autonomy, and he has isolated himself in Pennsylvania, where all his movies are made. "When someone is given total artistic freedom," says one blockbuster producer, "the result is usually bad."

The Cure: No one doubts his talent, or believes he has done irreparable harm to his career. What remains to be seen, though, is how he will react if "Lady in the Water" fails. "Will he be one of those guys who self-destructs," asks an Oscar-nominated producer, "or will he pick himself up and reinvent himself?" The solution, most suggest, is for him to break out of his self-imposed cocoon. "The smaller you make your world, the less of an artist you can really be," says an indie exec. "Look at Stanley Kubrick. If you see 'Eyes Wide Shut,' it's clear he hadn't left the house in 20 years." Others think Shyamalan should take a break from writing screenplays. "He could direct some big, great script that a studio is trying to get to someone like Spielberg," says the agent. Interesting thought, but this time let's leave the real Spielberg out of it.

Quote from: MacGuffin on July 17, 2006, 01:55:09 AM
says an indie exec. "Look at Stanley Kubrick. If you see 'Eyes Wide Shut,' it's clear he hadn't left the house in 20 years."

that indie exec is a fucking cunt. may his bowels block up with the force of a thousand polkablues mornings.

From that long article above, it sounds like it will be too confusing for a mass audience. I'm certain it will open at no. 1, but kinda feel it may drop fast. I wonder if Disney and everything it owns is forbiding him from advertising on their networks, etc.

Quote from: polkablues on July 12, 2006, 01:44:27 AM
Okay.  First off, even though the Disney folks didn't believe in the project, they still offered him a sixty million dollar budget and total creative control, and then when he decides to take the movie elsewhere, it's immediately snatched up by Warner Brothers... and they're trying to pass this off as some sort of hard-luck tale of the visionary artist struggling to make his dreams reality?  Jesus Christ!  I've had a harder time taking a crap in the morning than M Night Shyamalan had getting this movie made!  The only thing missing from that story was Night complaining about how his solid gold shoes were too tight, and his hovercar was running low on dreams, which it uses for fuel.

It ain't exactly the making of Malcolm X, is it?

Night takes flight to CAA
UTA's out as helmer leaves to new agency
Source: Variety

M. Night Shyamalan has fired UTA, the agency that repped him for a decade, to sign with CAA.
The move comes after Shyamalan's latest film, "Lady in the Water," grossed $42 million for Warner Bros.

"Lady in the Water" marked an end to Shyamalan's long relationship with Disney, which began when the studio bought "The Sixth Sense" in a spec deal in 1997. He followed with the films "Unbreakable," "Signs" and "The Village."

The writer-director is the second big name to leave UTA for CAA recently; Jim Carrey departed during the summer after 15 years there.

The drama behind the end of that relationship -- ex-Disney production head Nina Jacobson told Shyamalan she didn't get the script, and didn't like his decision to write a lead role for himself -- was captured in Michael Bamberger's book "The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale."

Shyamalan participated in the book, which was published to coincide with the release of "Lady in the Water." UTA's Jeremy Zimmer and Peter Benedek had repped Shyamalan since "Wide Awake," released in 1998.

The agency brokered the deal for "The Sixth Sense," which grossed $658 million worldwide and launched Shyamalan's star.

Element of Shyamalan in 'Airbender'
Source: Hollywood Reporter

M. Night Shyamalan will battle the elements when he tackles "Avatar: The Last Airbender," a live-action big-screen adaptation of the popular Nickelodeon animated series, for Paramount Pictures' MTV Films and Nick Movies.

Shyamalan will write, direct and produce the adaptation, which Nick hopes will turn into a three-picture series with Shyamalan's continuing involvement. The project marks the first time that Shyamalan, who is known for crafting original screenplays, will direct material he didn't create. It also is a rare foray for him into the kids pic arena, though he did flirt with directing one of the "Harry Potter" movies and did co-write 1999's "Stuart Little."

Created by Michael DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko, "Avatar" is set in a world balanced on four nations -- Water, Earth, Fire and Air. In each society, there are masters who can manipulate their native elements -- Waterbenders, Earthbenders, Firebenders and Airbenders -- while the one person who can master all four is the Avatar.

When the current Avatar, a 12-year-old boy still learning to master his powers, seemingly dies, the Fire nation launches a war for global domination. One hundred years later, two teens discover and free the Avatar and his flying bison from suspended animation, and he must fight to restore harmony among the four nations.

The series, influenced by Asian art, mythology and fighting styles, has won several awards and garnered Annie Award nominations for best animated television production and best writing in an animated television production. The series also has attracted an audience beyond Nickelodeon's usual 6-11 demographic.

Scott Aversano, head of MTV Films and Nick Movies, is overseeing the project. Shyamalan, repped by CAA, last directed "Lady in the Water."

Because James Cameron also is about to film a new project titled "Avatar," the films could end up in a showdown over their titles. Cameron's camp said he began his "Avatar" screenplay 12 years ago. "Ours is registered with the MPAA," Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment partner Jon Landau said.

A Nick spokesperson said it also has registered its title with the MPAA.

M. Night's Dead Planet
Source: Latino Review

On Tuesday Jan 16, M. Night went out to the town with a new original script, or spec entitled GREEN PLANET.

Although I originally wanted to report this last week, I held out, waiting to see who would purchase the spec.

Unfortunately, it looks like it is a pass around town, or a Pasadena. Pasadena is a term in the script world used when a new spec hits the town and has no buyers or takers.

So far, Universal, Paramount, Warner Brothers and Sony have all passed. Ouch!

The last word I heard was that Fox was still having a look, but it's looking like it'll get a pass there too.

Not much is known about GREEN PLANET, but I will report back as soon as I get any information. Now, because it wasn't purchased in the first round, that doesn't neccessarily mean that GREEN PLANET won't find a home. Many scripts don't sell first round out but what makes this interesting is that this is M. Night Shyamalan. He dominated the spec script world with everything he put out. His scripts would only be on the market 24-48 hours! After THE SIXTH SENSE, M. Night could wipe his ass with some paper and it would sell.

M. Nightmare Shyamalan: "Green" a Lonely Planet
Source: TMZ

Ouch.

Normally, we wouldn't comment on a script that's struggling to sell -- most don't, after all -- but when the flailing spec script in question comes from a director whose last four movies have grossed a combined $1.25 billion worldwide, it's really kinda shocking.

Insiders tell TMZ.com that M. Night Shyamalan's newest screenplay, "Green Planet" went out to various studios last weekend, including Paramount, Sony, Universal and Fox.

The Night story, insiders say, centers on an alien invasion of earth carried out using Nature's flora and fauna -- and sources also say that so far, at least three studios have passed (possibly because Steven Spielberg has already made that movie, so to speak) though we hear only Fox was intrigued, but even then was demanding substantial rewrites, something Night is usually unwilling to do.

Explained one motion picture literary agent not affiliated with Team Night: "When this happens we call it, 'Throwing up a burger.' "

Of course, there's still a chance that the Night script might sell, but no doubt buyers are wary after "The Lady in the Water" so badly misfired.

M. Night, of course, recently signed on to an adaptation of "Avatar: The Last Airbender," a kiddie movie Paramount hopes will turn into a franchise.

Shyamalan re-working 'Green'
Helmer may make film before 'Avatar'
Source: Variety

Despite expectations that M. Night Shyamalan will be engaging James Cameron in a battle of avatars, the director wants to first wage a battle between man vs. nature.

When the writer-director traveled from Philadelphia to Hollywood recently to cement his plan to turn the cartoon "Avatar: The Last Airbender" into a live-action film for Paramount, he and his new CAA reps showed several studios a new script he's written. Called "The Green Effect," the film is about a large-scale, cataclysmic environmental crisis that turns into a struggle by mankind to overcome nature.

The unveiling of the script did not immediately create a green effect for Shyamalan, as no studio liked it enough to take it off the table. Studios are understandably wary, since Shyamalan is coming off the first failure of his career, "Lady in the Water."

Shyamalan was personally hurt when ex-Disney production president Nina Jacobson told him point-blank she didn't get his "Lady in the Water" script and didn't like his decision to cast himself in the pic.

It ended his relationship with Disney -- where he made "The Sixth Sense" and his subsequent films -- and set the film up at Warner Bros.

Jacobson's reservations were consistent with the reaction of critics to a film that wilted in the heat of rival summer releases.

Shyamalan might not have gotten over the Disney rejection --sources say the Mouse was not a stop on his recent tour -- but he apparently has become better at taking criticism from studio execs.

He walked away from his round of meetings with ideas and notes and has gone home to do a rewrite. Shyamalan will return within a month, armed with a script that will bear a new title, along with a cast and budget.

If the revamp scores Shyamalan a deal, he'll likely make the film before the "Avatar" pic.

It seems that Jacobson's criticisms were spot on, since almost every LitW review I read hated Shyamalan's role in the film, not to mention the film itself.

What Shyamalan needs is a co-writer.

Green sounds like a bad idea that will make a lot of money. Back when Shyamalan felt cornered with the "failure" of Unbreakable, he went off and came up with Signs, which was a hit but also is, to me, the least interesting of his films. Lady in The Water took it in the neck and i felt a lot of the criticism was personal. The movie itself i found it ok. Time will be kinder with it. At least it was trying to do something different and unique. But no, critics found much more to praise in superman, bond, cars and a lot of other xerox copies of other movies. great.

You've been so ANGRY recently, Alexandro!

... I like it!

I think all his films since Sixth Sense are way overrated. Unbreakable was good, but not so great. Signs was OK. The Village? Terrible. I didnt even bother watching Lady in the Water. He thinks he is so fucking great, and thats why he's been declining over the years. Maybe the fact that all the studios told him to shove his new script up his ass will make him realize he needs to work harder and come up with a freakin good script finally.

Misunderstood Night Shyamalan
Believes history will judge Lady in the Water "beautiful."
Source: NY Mag

Just days after "winning" two Golden Raspberry (Razzie) Awards for his universally drubbed film Lady in the Water—Worst Director and Worst Supporting Actor (yes, he cast himself in a key role)—M. Night Shyamalan dropped in from Philadelphia to hear Bono speak at the Time Warner Center. He'd come to get ideas for his own work on an anti-poverty foundation in India, and it turned out he hadn't heard about the Razzies yet. "Did I? I didn't know," he said. "Look, I loved that movie. It's a beautiful, beautiful movie. So there's some disconnect from the intention to the perception of it. I hope, just with time, that will ease. All of my movies have benefited from time." Shyamalan—who is working on film adaptations of the cartoons Avatar: The Last Airbender and He-Man and the Masters of the Universe—admitted to reading his reviews but says they have no influence on him. "I've got shit to say! I need to say it," he said. "I don't want to think about 'Will they like it or will they not like me?'" As for what shit he was saying in Lady, he didn't say.

Quote from: MacGuffin on March 05, 2007, 09:05:44 PM
"I've got shit to say! I need to say it," he said. ... As for what shit he was saying in Lady, he didn't say.

best ending to an article ever.

Shyamalan Addresses Avatar
The Lady in the Water director discusses his upcoming adaptation.

IGN Movies has caught a sneak peek of the upcoming DVD release for Avatar: The Last Airbender - The Complete Book 2 Collection, on which director M. Night Shyamalan has a frank conversation with the show's creators Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino about bringing the animated series to live-action life.

"I really was looking for something to do where I could do these cool fighting scenes and everything," Shyamalan explains in the "Interview with Creators and M. Night Shyamalan" bonus featurette. "Avatar had such a beautiful way of doing that. The supernatural, with all of the elements -- that's another huge thing for me and it's kind of based in all of this eastern stuff; it's really beautiful ideas behind it."

The filmmaker notes that the biggest challenge he will face adapting the series to live-action will be the practical demands of the locations.

"When you guys write a scene that [takes place] in the North Pole, you can do that. But we've got to be in Arctic weather for months on end," he says. Additionally, Shyamalan lets slip that he is struggling with the challenge of streamlining the show's story to fit into three two-hour films. "It's going to be really hard for me because I really loved what you guys did and I'm finding it hard to let go of anything. At first when I put the outline together, I showed it to you guys and it basically had every single thing you guys wrote."

He is getting a grasp on the material, however, and beginning to break down the story into three self-contained films.

"I think I've got to a place where I really know how to bring in the characters, and what characters I can save for the other movies, and what moments we can save for the other movies," Shyamalan says. "So it's really starting to take shape into a two-hour movie -- and I think that will happen for each of the three movies."

"I think they're going to be mostly unknown kids and teenagers," Shyamalan adds of his potential.

But he looks forward to the adaptation process as it will mark his first formal collaboration with other screenwriters on a movie.

"The really cool thing for me is that I close my door and I write my movies and it's just the most lonely, depressing process that anyone could go through. On this movie, I've got you guys to be depressed with me, so this is such an exciting thing for me."

Exclusive: Shyamalan Talks Avatar
That's The Last Airbender, not Cameron's
Source: Empire Online

If you're a person who laments the decline of the Saturday morning kids cartoon genre, then you should really check out Avatar: The Last Airbender. It may not currently be on TV (we've not been getting up early), but it's available on DVD and it's properly brilliant; beautifully animated and very well written for kids' entertainment. M Night Shyamalan is currently in pre-production adapting the cartoon into a movie trilogy, so now is really the time to get yourself familiar with it.

We chatted with Shyamalan recently and he filled us in on a few details of the movie. For those who don't know the show, he explains the plot thusly:

"The actual plot is in a place where there are four tribes of people. And these people each have people within their tribe that have mastery over one element: water, earth, fire or air. They all live in a balance and harmony and once every generation there is born an individual who can bend – that is manipulate – all four of those elements and thereby keep a balance between all. They are kind of a Buddha figure to some extent. The story is about how, in this particular time, this avatar is born into the airbenders and disappears. Then all hell breaks loose and the fire nation basically commits genocide and eradicates the air tribe in the hopes of killing the avatar and taking over control of everything. This child then re-emerges, which is the beginning of our story. He reappears having been frozen in the ice — there is a whole story about how that happens — a hundred years later and this world is all fucked up and he is the last airbender, but he doesn't want this job. He's forced into the position of putting the world back together again. It actually has a lot of Shakespearean overtones to it. There's lots of family angst, and fathers denying sons in different storylines."

That all clear? Short version is, there's a small boy called Aang who has the potential to control all the elements and everyone wants to capture him. Shyamalan says it was the mythology and philosophy inherent in the story that attracted him to it.

"Buddhist and Hindu philosophies run through the stuff," he continues. "When I realised that is what it was, it really drew me as the template for putting storytelling on a new level. There is a kind of thread that connects Star Wars and The Matrix – the first one. That same thread is in this story, about a forgotten belief system, or the illusion of the world now."

Of course, philosophy doesn't necessarily guarantee bums on seats. But this is a film that has a great deal of potential for incredible spectacle. The most powerful of the element benders can do great things with their powers, like controlling a raging river or manipulating walls of flame. Done right, this should have some incredible action.

"Obviously [there will be] some breathtaking visual effects," the director says. "Just imagine if you saw a little girl bending water out of a glass into the air as an extension of her own personal discipline. It's three movies about the hero learning three elements. Live action".

But, equally, Shyamalan doesn't want the film, which he says will shoot on stages in Philadelphia, as well as locations including Greenland, to simply be an excuse for empty spectacle. He also acknowledges that this is a long way from anything he's done before. It's got the philosophical elements he likes, but it's also painting on a much larger canvas than any of his other films and speaking to a younger audience.

"It's daunting on the level of not doing it properly," he admits. "It can't be special effects for the sake of special effects, it has to be [that you use] take seven because the girl breathes properly on take seven. I have to tell the animators that. Everything, has to have that detail. I can't leave it. I have to make sure that I make it the same kind of storytelling, but with just one more tool."

Like we say, this is very different to anything Shyamalan's done before, but we can really see him making this work. Whether you like all his movies or not, you can't deny the man is blessed with a lot of imagination. And that's exactly what a project like this needs – someone who can wrestle the multiple ideas of the show into a simple, coherent and visually amazing film. This should, and hopefully will be, fantastic.

sorry if this is up somewhere else, but this was the first time i saw it.
surely it's got to be better than Lady

http://video.cineplex.com/?fr_story=c72ed1e5eef326a6bac15ef22b83eb418ac9524f&rf=bm

I was just watching Signs on TV while at the gym. I am freaked out. I even screeched. It was bright. I wasn't alone. I kept looking behind me. The walk to the car through the parking lot, I was for sure that I was going to get abducted by aliens. I planned on swimming when I got home...forget that.


I'm slightly embarrassed.

Night falls for Media Rights
Shyamalan teams for producing deal
Source: Variety

Media Rights Capital and M. Night Shyamalan have formed the Night Chronicles, a financing/production partnership intended to generate one thriller per year for three years.

Shyamalan will produce but not direct, marking the first time he will produce a film he didn't write and helm. Shyamalan will create the stories and ideas for the films and pick the writers and directors; MRC will finance.

Shyamalan and MRC will co-own the copyrights and retain artistic control.

Two factors in particular attracted MRC to the filmmaker: Shyamalan typically generates more movie ideas than he can execute, since he writes, directs, produces and often acts in the films he makes. And he has a track record of bringing his films in on budget.

The new venture marks the first major deal for Tory Metzger since she left CAA to become prexy of MRC Films, and she expects that Shyamalan will be very hands-on with the Night Chronicles product.

"These films will be based on ideas in keeping with what has made Night so successful, and has made him unique to his time," Metzger told Daily Variety. MRC will set up each project for distribution when Metzger and co-CEOs Modi Wiczyk and Asif Satchu feel it's best for the film.The projects aren't formalized, and no writers have yet been hired, but Shyamalan has at least two ideas that could become films. The Night Chronicles will be based near Philadelphia, where the filmmaker lives and works. To oversee development, MRC has hired Ashwin Rajan, a veteran UTA agent who is Shyamalan's cousin.

The MRC deal is the second Shyamalan has made recently that gives him a copyright ownership stake. His pact with India-based entertainment company UTV on "The Happening" gave Shyamalan a 25% ownership stake in the negative; that inventive deal gave the director his usual upfront fee but traded his first-dollar gross participation for an ownership stake and 50% of the film's revenue stream, once 20th Century Fox and UTV recouped budget and P&A costs.

While the film hasn't performed as strongly as some of Shyamalan's past hits, "The Happening" cost around $50 million and is about to cross $150 million in worldwide gross. Shyamalan is in Japan to promote the film's opening there.

"Filmmakers have always been my inspiration," Shyamalan said in a statement. "Working with the next wave of innovative filmmakers will teach me many things that I can bring to my own writing/directing and give my stories the opportunity to be brought to the screen in a stunning way."

Shyamalan next directs "The Last Airbender," a live-action adaptation of the Nickelodeon property. Paramount has skedded the film for release on July 2, 2010.

MRC is in the midst of its most ambitious film slate since launching. The company has completed production on a half-dozen films ranging from the Robert Rodriguez-directed "Shorts" to "The Other Side of the Truth," which Ricky Gervais co-wrote and co-directed with Matthew Robinson, and has a handful of projects in the pipeline.

MRC also recently launched its TV production slate that includes programming a Sunday-night primetime block for CW and has hatched digital projects that include an original animated series creation by "Family Guy's" Seth MacFarlane that will be distributed by Google and YouTube.

Shyamalan Mulls Unbreakable Sequel
Source: SciFi Wire

M. Night Shyamalan said he is considering working on a sequel to his hit Unbreakable, a superhero tale about a man (Bruce Willis) who finds that he is impervious to harm and is called to become a savior.

"I'm a strange creature," the writer/director said in a conference call with reporters last week. "When Unbreakable came out, I was like, 'God, man I'm so excited.' I thought [it] was like comic books. No one has really done comic books like this: reality-based comic books. I really think this is a metaphor for things that people can go crazy over."

Though the film was eventually a hit, the initial reaction was mixed. "When the reaction was mixed, kind of a disappointment, I was pettily hurt, and I was like, 'God, I took so many incredible risks and things like that,'" Shyamalan said.

Because of that, Shyamalan's excitement about a sequel to the movie was muted. "I felt really hurt, and I couldn't bring myself to write," he said. "It's literally like a relationship I have with the audience. ... And then, over the years, as it just grew and grew and grew, and people were like, 'You know, I really like that. That's actually my favorite movie, and I watch that all the time,' and on and on. I'll be on the street, and some kid will run across traffic with it in his backpack--he just is carrying it in his backpack--and he'll be running [saying], 'I can't believe it's you!' Will you sign my Unbreakable DVD?' And quoting the thing and all that stuff."

As a result, Shyamalan said that the sequel idea now haunts him. "How bizarre," he said. "I want to write it right now, but I want to write it for the right reasons. I want a story to pop into my head that is organic and expressive of who I am. You know, these are all kind of journals of where I am emotionally, so it's kind of hard. I'm kind of trying to go back to the journal that existed in 1999 for me. But I know me: As soon as I give up on it is when the idea will come to me. It's just I need to go into therapy; I guess that's the end of that answer to this."

I'll take him off the Ratner list if he does an Unbreakable sequel. That would be awesome.

wow, he's so full of himself it stops being funny. "i took all these incredible risks"...you would think he was making l'eclisse...

Well, to be fair, Unbreakable was a huge risk and that's what he was referring to.

I think Unbreakable was a pretty big risk. It was his second major film and he could have cemented his career by making a straight face comic book film, but he instead makes a reality based one that questions our idea of comic books and super heroes in general.

That being said, I hope he doesn't make Unbreakable because it is really good. It is the only comic book film I take seriously because it is the only one that is reflective of dramatic ideas and cultural thought. The Dark Knight has no philosophical compass outside the fictional world it's within so you have to rummage through made up ideas of the genre to find meaning in Batman. He resonates with the outside world in the very loosest sense.

To me comic books are a form of science fiction. They deal with fantastic scenarios, but are best when they propose theoretical ideas that resonate with our lives. Every comic book film has failed in that regard. Even if I was a die hard fan of a comic book figure and appreciated how a modern film mixed and matched every comic book interpretation of my hero in a cool new way, I would still understand the accomplishment was limited. It's not that meaningful. Casino Royale is the perfect Bond film because a lot of it is dedication to the genre of Bond, but it still was a trivial film.

only in the end you realize unbreakable is a comic book movie. it wasn't sold like one when it was on theatres, and if had been sold like that it would have tanked. to the casual viewer, this was a supernatural story. i love unbreakable, easily his best film, and the more risky. but you don't say things in interviews like "i'm a strange creature" and "i took all these incredible risks"....he sounds like an idiot. sorry.

Quote from: Alexandro on October 08, 2008, 12:04:03 AM
only in the end you realize unbreakable is a comic book movie. it wasn't sold like one when it was on theatres, and if had been sold like that it would have tanked. to the casual viewer, this was a supernatural story. i love unbreakable, easily his best film, and the more risky. but you don't say things in interviews like "i'm a strange creature" and "i took all these incredible risks"....he sounds like an idiot. sorry.

I think Unbreakable is the cousin film to Speilberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Both films are character studies that are meant to reflect our fascination and desire to believe in a popular phenomenon. Speilberg's generation had aliens and now Shyamalan correctly understands today it is super heroes. I believe super heroes are hollow as far as dramatic potential goes, but I definitely understand the relevance they have in our society.

Why does everyone hate Signs? I thought it was great. Sure, it wasn't very plausible, but I found it was very effective the way it stayed with this one family through the whole film instead of focusing on what's going on in the rest of the world.

I didn't hate Signs when it came out and saw it in the theatre. I haven't seen it again because I think the experience would be diminished greatly on the small screen. I thought it was very good actually. Of course on that film there were already signs ;) of what would become shyamalan's worst tendencies, like his reliance in humor and the fact he doesn't give a fuck when something doesn't make any sense but he loves the idea of having some sort of shocking effect on the audience, like that shit about the aliens being allergic to water....

Unbreakable is my favorite, too.
saw Signs on opening weekend in a full theatre on the front row. seen it on cable several times since. just didn't impress me.
I liked the Village when I saw it in the theatre, but I have yet to revisit it to see if I feel the same.
Sixth Sense - i think i can never like it because the idea that he would have never opened the door (or there was something else that just didn't add up, it's been too long for me to remember).
Lady was atrocious.
haven't seen the last one.

the village, i saw it twice on the theater even though i realy hated the ending. to me it is failure, but a beautiful failure everything feels precise and made with love and care. i thought the relationship between the two leads was very effectively realized, and she in particular was a revelation. everything was cool to me except the ending.

I actually am in the minority here, but I love/like anything he's done since The Sixth Sense (haven't seen his previous movies).

The thing is, he only uses those supernatural elements to explore our fears. Most of the time, everything is just a metaphor for something else. Plausibility doesn't really bother me a bit in movies, as long as it serves the story being told. And I really don't think (and most will disagree with me here) he manipulates elements of his movies forcing them to feed the story. He makes them part of it. Example: okay, aliens are allergic to water, but the movie is about faith, so we'll have some character use the water in a way that is going to resonate at the end. What's the difference how we beat them, since the story really isn't about them, but about a family dealing with a terrible death. The movie that most defies this to me is "Lady In The Water", where characters really seem to be there only to move the plot forward, but then again, it's a matter of how you see it. Because, like in all bedtime stories or fables, these characters all represent something more. He creates universes where he just asks one thing from the audience: accept it. The rest, well, it succeeds because he's great at a lot of things, mostly visually. He's great at creating tense situations, and he is never afraid to take chances, even if they can make him look ridiculous.

By the way, Alexandro, what did you not like about the ending of "The Village"? I couldn't see any other way for it to end. To me, that is one of the very few movies we can actually call a post-9/11 picture. It's all about running away from fear, closing yourself away from the real world and digging into some sort of utopia - but in the end, the real world always comes to get you.

VILLAGE SPOILERS

I didn't like the ending of The Village for many reasons. The main one being that it was unnecessary. The film IS about running away from fear and taking refugee in utopia, but that's clear from the get go. We really didn't need to learn that these people are actually living in the present. I don't remember what the explanation was, but it was contrived and sounded silly and ridiculous. Again, he seemed to be so in love with the idea of pulling the carpet from our feet, of giving us a twist. You can take the film exactly like it is, and reveal some sort of explanation for the weird behaviours everyone has there without having to say we are suddenly in the 2000's...just for him to explain all this, the film takes like 10, 15 minutes of one contrived occurrence after the other. Let's forget about the complete implausibility of what he's proposing, let's forget about planes flying by or people, you know, finding out, since they didn't seemed to be living in some isolated mini world in the middle of nowhere, but actually in some sort of suburb...even forgetting about that, it just feels so forced!! I was very disappointed when that happened.

And if he was so in love with this idea, at least he should have worked a little bit more in resolving the whole thing in a more simple manner. What boggles me about these choices he makes is that he claims to be on the boat of being a master storytelling, and it's like his instincts are all fucked up, because he doesn't seem to realize when one of these ideas will just kill the whole thing, all the work done up to that point. Both times I saw The Village people started laughing and complaining out loud. If you want to be M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, you have to expect these things before, or see how obvious it is that's gonna happen to avoid it.

The same happened in THE HAPPENING. His whole thing seems to be to create tension with silence and stillness, but it gets to a point (very early on) when you have to ask yourself if these characters realize what is happening around them, because none of them react in any credible, let alone exciting way to the fact that THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE. Looking at Marky Mark's and Zooey's reactions, you would think nothing is happening, they seem to be more worried about their marital problems, which, by the way, are pretty lame and boring compared to what previous Shyamalan characters were experiencing. Now, let's say this is on purpose. That this guy is actually making the actors perform like this to make a point about real life, about the apathy of real human beings regarding the destruction of our environment. Isn't that way too pretentious and doesn't it get old quickly? When I saw this film I was literally with my mouth open at how bad it was. The acting specially, I felt as if I was watching a short film from my communications college, from the guys who were clueless about the whole thing.

SPOILERS ABOUT THE VILLAGE AND THE HAPPENING

OK, I can see what you mean, even though I don't agree with a lot of things.

About The Village ending, I think it was important to place the story in the present in order to make its point. Yes, it's true that the characters always mention running away from something in their town, but placing it in present day increases its point. Why? Because it's so extreme. Because not only does it show that they wanted to escape from society, but also that they, in a sense, wanted a whole new world for them, a world that was pure and innocent. But, of course, they depended on the real world in order to save someone and, more than that, to save love. Again, it's a very symbolic idea which I liked, because in order to preserve the purity of their world, they needed help from the world outside. As for plausibility, again, it's something that doesn't even bother, but if you watch it closely, all of those things (planes, people finding out) are explained in the movie and, again, it's up to you to accept that.

One more note about The Happening. I agree that the human factor there isn't as deep or as convincing as in his other movies, and the acting felt a little odd at times, but I didn't see anything wrong with their attitudes. It's only normal that, when trying to escape tragedy, you'll first want to help the ones you love, and care about them more than anyone else. He has a strong message to pass with this movie (sometimes I liked how he did it, sometimes I didn't), and maybe some of his choices weren't that good, but it was filled with great cinematic moments - either technically or emotionally (I loved those deaths at the beggining, the pass the gun sequence, John Leguizamo's death scene and the conversation in the old lady's house between Deschannel and Wahlberg - again (and I don't argue that this might be very lame if you look at it that way), in a sense, those characters were saved by love. But in neither one of these movies does it mean that, even though their love was saved, the world is a safe place. I don't know, I really like these kind of stories, but yeah, Shyamalan (just like Brian De Palma) is one of those directors about which I can understand some of the hate...

SPOILERING THE HAPPENING


It's not that I think that having marital problems is lame for characters in movies, this movie or any movie. But if I recall correctly their problem seemed to be something about not feeling jealous enough? He gets mad because she ordered dessert at some meal? They both sound like inmense dorks. It was like: "dude, please get over this bullshit". It was all very poorly handled.

I like when movies become the metaphors they are about (as in "these characters were saved by love"), I just don't think the film cares about not hammering you in the head with them and developing characters and situations instead. It's pure effect with almost no cause.

I also was impressed with the deaths at the beggining, although Leguizamo's scene was, again, too contrived, too prepared. I like Shyamalan a lot, I think he can truly be one of the top leadig american filmmakers. If he wanted to be like Spielberg in the 80's he could, if he wanted to be an art director, some kind of new breed, he could too. But he has to take his head out of his ass and stop being so in love with every "awesome" thing that comes into his head.

It seems I kind of agree with you that in The Happening, the characters could be more worked out, and their problems aren't deep enough, but I think his filmmaking here is top notch, really. I love the way he takes his time with a shot, how he frames, uses music, etc... To me it's the one of his films I like the least, but I still enjoy it because some of the details and scenes I wrote about.

I can perfectly see how we can pass as a pompous ass, but for some reason I kind of find it likable when those things come across in his movies. I mean, I couldn't care less if a film maker is an ass in interviews or in his personal life, as long as his movies aren't. With Shyamalan, the guy who plays a character in his own movie whose words are going to save the world, and who puts a critic in the same movie as "the asshole" it somehow worked. But I totally can see what you're saying, he takes risks, his ideas may come across as contrived and too much to handle, but they're fine with me (although, yeah, it's not for him to say he takes chances like he's doing something only he is capable of).

i liked the stuff about the critic and the mesiah in lady in the water too. i thought it was funny. i think lady in the water will be some kind of rediscovered film buff guilty pleasure in the future.

Quote from: Alexandro on October 12, 2008, 10:58:30 AM
i liked the stuff about the critic and the mesiah in lady in the water too. i thought it was funny. i think lady in the water will be some kind of rediscovered film buff guilty pleasure in the future.

I can't call it a guilty pleasure yet because I've only seen it once - the movie is not available in stores here in Portugal on DVD at the moment, don't know why. But I sure had a great time the first time I watched it.

I can understand saying Unbreakable was taking a risk (even though it's basically a remake of The Sixth Sense with different themes), but how else does he "take risks"?  I think he just tries so hard to mask his innability to come up with an original idea anymore that it seems risky to make something so stupid.

He basically forces emotion and he forces it more and more with each film, now to the point where it's laughable.  He forces it into a story which serves some kind of lame "message".  The end result of the "message" is so pointless when it's delivered so poorly.
Then I really think he goes "what would Hitchcock have done with this?  Oh!  I know!  This will be slick!  I'm going to write this scene into the movie somehow so I can pull this cool move off!"... and sometimes they're kind of fun scenes, but they don't really serve much.

I fully support him continuing on this path because each new movie is funnier and funnier.

Quote from: RegularKarate on October 14, 2008, 12:58:07 PM
I can understand saying Unbreakable was taking a risk (even though it's basically a remake of The Sixth Sense with different themes), but how else does he "take risks"?  I think he just tries so hard to mask his innability to come up with an original idea anymore that it seems risky to make something so stupid.

He basically forces emotion and he forces it more and more with each film, now to the point where it's laughable.  He forces it into a story which serves some kind of lame "message".  The end result of the "message" is so pointless when it's delivered so poorly.
Then I really think he goes "what would Hitchcock have done with this?  Oh!  I know!  This will be slick!  I'm going to write this scene into the movie somehow so I can pull this cool move off!"... and sometimes they're kind of fun scenes, but they don't really serve much.

I fully support him continuing on this path because each new movie is funnier and funnier.

i think lady in the water, despite whatever faults it has, qualifies as an original idea.
i also think in the last few days both me and elpanda have discussed his films enough to illustrate how he takes risks, specially for a mainstream filmmaker. if he didn't, his films wouldn't be so despised, that's for sure. he's no rattner or comes even close to that. he has his own voice, and that always implies risks. so i'm not sure I know what you mean.

that said, he does forces emotion in embarrasing ways, even more so in his last films.

M. Night Shyamalan's 'Devil' gets its due
It's the first film he's written that he won't direct
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- M. Night Shyamalan is making a deal with the "Devil."

The helmer's three-film financing/production partnership with Media Rights Capital, the Night Chronicles, is launching with the supernatural thriller "Devil."

John and Andrew Dowdle will direct and executive produce a script by Brian Nelson ("30 Days of Night") based on an original Shyamalan story. The project will be the first feature Shyamalan has written or produced without directing.

No plot details were revealed, but Shyamalan will oversee all three films' development and production. TNC exec Ashwin Rajan will be responsible for identifying talent and will work closely with Shyamalan.

"Devil" heads into production next year, aiming for a PG-13 rating. The Night Chronicles features set to begin production in 2010 and 2011 will also be based on his original stories.

John Dowdle recenty directed "Quarantine," an adaptation of the Spanish horror hit "[Rec]" he co-scripted with brother Andrew.

"This is a dream for me. I wanted to find filmmakers that inspire me and I found them," said Shyamalan, who will co-own the films' copyrights with MRC and shop them for distribution.

The filmmaker, who recently experienced recent critical lambasting for his $64.5 million-grossing supernatural thriller "The Happening," is now directing the 2010 Paramount family fantasy "The Last Airbender."

Quote from: MacGuffin on October 28, 2008, 05:42:24 PM
John and Andrew Dowdle will direct and executive produce a script by Brian Nelson ("30 Days of Night") based on an original Shyamalan story. The project will be the first feature Shyamalan has written or produced without directing.

He co-wrote Stuart Little.

Quote from: Ravi on October 28, 2008, 05:58:21 PM

Quote from: MacGuffin on October 28, 2008, 05:42:24 PM
John and Andrew Dowdle will direct and executive produce a script by Brian Nelson ("30 Days of Night") based on an original Shyamalan story. The project will be the first feature Shyamalan has written or produced without directing.

He co-wrote Stuart Little.

You should work for The Hollywood Reporter.

Shyamalan cast floats on 'Air'
'Slumdog' star Dev Patel joins Paramount film
Source: Variety

"Slumdog Millionaire" star Dev Patel has joined the cast of M. Night Shyamalan's "The Last Airbender," the Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon Films live-actioner based on a Nick TV series.

Patel will be featured alongside newcomer Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone and Jessica Jade Andres. Production begins in mid-March in Greenland.

In casting Patel and Ringer, a director accustomed to delivering plot twists to audiences got some surprises of his own. Ringer is a complete unknown who was tapped for the title role off an Internet audition. Patel, meanwhile, steps into a role that Jesse McCartney had all but locked up until the actor's second career as a musician got in the way.

"Jesse had tour dates that conflicted with a boot camp I always hold on my films, and where the actors here have to train for martial arts," Shyamalan said.

Patel was "already one of the guys I was interested in. Then I saw 'Slumdog Millionaire,' and the kid just grew in my eyes," he said.

Tyro thesp Ringer will play Aang, the film's lead, who is the last of a race of people who can manipulate the elements of air.

Ringer, a 12-year-old from Texas, landed the part after demonstrating his martial arts skills in an Internet vid that he posted to a website Shyamalan set up for open virtual auditions.

Patel will play Zuko, a member of the Fire Nation. Peltz plays the Water Tribe rep Katara, while Andres is the Earth Kingdom's representative, Suki.

While McCartney was knocked out by scheduling, Rathbone managed to work around a conflict with "New Moon," where he will reprise his role as a bloodsucker from "Twilight."

Paramount is set to release "Airbender on July 2, 2010.

Shyamalan said he is planning a three-picture story arc.

More Cast Revealed For Shyamalan's Devil... And Also The Film's Premise, Maybe?
Source: SlashFilm

On Friday, /Film's Russ Fischer said of Devil, the upcoming Dowdle Bros. film from a story by M. Night Shyamalan and script by Brian Nelson, that "The film starts shooting in Toronto a week from Monday, and that's all we've got. It's tightly under wraps, and has been for a while. Which, I suspect, really means that there's some info out there that we haven't dug up yet."

Look's like we've now managed to dig a bit of it up, with a little help from our friends. Be wary of potential spoilers as you read on.


After Russ' post was published, I received a kindly nudge in the direction of the film's logline. Googling it (of course) I found it published on just one site - the rather unexpected Hollywood.Com. Here it is, word for word:

A group of people are trapped in an elevator, and one of them is the devil.

As simple as that. So, I began digging further to see what else I could find. Again, the info was in an unexpected place... it was right here, at /Film. Right under my nose.


Back when Peter reported on the film changing shooting location to Canada, we received a comment from Only Read if you want to know. It read:


Devil is basically a supernatural thriller set inside of an office building. There are some people stuck in an elevator, and one of them is not who they say they are (*cough* it's in the title *caugh*)

There is also a security guard and a policeman. The security guard is trying to convince the policeman to get them out of the elevator. He is also trying to convince the policeman that he is the chosen one to save the people.

The commenter later followed up with:

Total truth man, inside info from the script, it's a cool concept, the script is a little weak, but it could be made up in style.

So, that's now three sources in corroboration. I'm calling this one... and if you're reading this, Only Read, I'd love a look at that script myself. Thanks for your info.

In further Devil news, The Hollywood Reporter have rounded up a more comprehensive cast list. As well as Chris Messina they name Bojana Novakovic, Bokeem Woodbine, Geoffrey Arend and Caroline Dhavernas. Place your bets now on who will be the eponymous evil. I'm betting on there being a real angel in there too.

Shyamalan shopping new movie with big stars

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - As he puts the finishing touches on the big-budget fantasy spectacle "The Last Airbender," filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan is quietly circulating a new script.

No details are known about the project, but it comes with some major acting talent: Bradley Cooper, Gwyneth Paltrow and Bruce Willis are loosely attached to star in the film.

Shyamalan is famously secretive, and this project is no exception: Only top studio execs have read the script, and they were required to allow a Shyamalan assistant to supervise the process. When the executives finished reading, the assistant took the script back and left.

It's a practice that is consistent with previous Shyamalan script sales. But while there was a time when an original Shyamalan project -- with their trademarked twists and reveals -- caused great ripples throughout Hollywood, in recent years the filmmaker's box office and critical clout have diminished.

"Airbender," which is getting the full Paramount marketing push for a July 1 release, could bring some of that heat back, but the project is the first for Shyamalan based on material that he didn't originate. It's also his first attempt at a special effects-driven franchise-starter.

Still, with Cooper, Paltrow and Willis attached (the latter starred in the filmmaker's breakthrough "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable"), Shyamalan can still lure talent.

Quote from: MacGuffin on June 22, 2010, 01:14:07 PMShyamalan is famously secretive, and this project is no exception: Only top studio execs have read the script, and they were required to allow a Shyamalan assistant to supervise the process. When the executives finished reading, the assistant took the script back and left.

He's still doing this shit? This guy is the worst.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.nymag.com%2Fimages%2F2%2Fdaily%2Fentertainment%2F08%2F06%2F02_mnightshamamamalon_lgl.jpg&hash=7c9fb720c5fcf6b3cbb927dc7b335efc94763cee)"If you want the privilege of reading my new screenplay, you must read it it one sitting while my assistant hovers over you. When you are finished, she will take it away and you must sign a confidentiality agreement. NO EXCEPTIONS."

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fpagesixmag%2Fissues%2F20090104%2Fimages%2FFeatures%2Fcoverstory%2F1.jpg&hash=f47ded11f52818d8ff7b98d49676cbf4f6339039)"haha. Oh, M. Night! And they say you're one of the most unfunny people in this town!....................Oh, you're serious? Oh, I'm sorry! Yeah, I think I'm gonna pass on this film. Good luck, though!"

Does anyone even care about what the new M. Night movie is? Do you really think this studio executive would be at some dinner party and bring up that he read M. Night's new screenplay and the other guests would just be BEGGING HIM to reveal the plot and twists? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

Shyamalan's Secret Script: Supernatural Version of 'Taken'?
Source: Cinematical

A few days ago, we reported that director M. Night Shayamalan is currently shopping his latest script around Hollywood. In typical M. Night fashion, there's an air of secrecy surrounding the project, but Deadline has managed to get some insight into what the story is about.

According to their sources, the untitled project -- which has Bradley Cooper, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Bruce Willis "loosely attached" as stars -- would be a story about a father (Cooper) searching for his missing child. To help the cause, he apparently turns to supernatural forces for assistance. Early buzz is calling it a "supernatural Taken" -- which is an intriguing description. CAA is showing the script and Universal appears to be the most interested party at this early stage.

Universal and Shyamalan already have a relationship, with the studio handling the distribution of John Dowdle's Devil -- the first title released under Shyamalan's The Night Chronicles production banner. Shyamalan and his cousin Ashwin Rajan launched the imprint to create a series of genre films made by up-and-coming directors and based on Shyamalan's ideas. They've just chosen their second project, Twelve Strangers -- a thriller wherein a jury is forced to debate a case involving the supernatural. Hmm ... I'm sensing a trend here.

The director's latest film, a big screen live-action version of the popular cartoon Avatar: The Last Airbender (film version known simply as The Last Airbender to apparently avoid confusion with that other Avatar movie) opens on July 1.

'Unbreakable 2' Story Was Repurposed For 'Night Chronicles,' Says M. Night Shyamalan
Source: MTV

So MTV Movies' Joshua Horowitz and I both get a lot of flak for our love of M. Night Shyamalan's dark superhero movie "Unbreakable," but that hasn't stopped us from pestering the filmmaker about a potential sequel every time we have the chance.

Back in June during "The Last Airbender" press junket, the filmmaker told me he was searching for "the right story" for "Unbreakable 2." Now, promoting the first of his "Night Chronicles" film series, "Devil," Shyamalan once again fielded the question — and revealed that his "Unbreakable 2" story will indeed hit the big screen, but as a completely different film.

"I cannibalized the idea for the sequel to 'Unbreakable' for one of the 'Night Chronicles,'" revealed Shyamalan.

"It was such a cool idea for a villain, and it was actually originally in the script for 'Unbreakable,' and it was too much," he said of his reasons for excising the element that was intended to become "Unbreakable 2." "There were too many villains, so I pulled this villain out and was like, 'I'll make this the second flick.'"

However, as the filmmaker got caught up in other projects and "Unbreakable 2" became less likely, the seed of that idea still managed to grow.

"I fleshed it out more and more, and thought, 'This could be a standalone movie,'" he said. "I'll just say it: the third 'Night Chronicles' movie is what would have been the sequel [to 'Unbreakable']. So now I need to come up with a new idea."

Shyamalan also semi-validated "Unbreakable" fans' appreciation for the 2000 film, admitting that it's also one of his own favorites.

"Literally, that's the question I get asked the most anywhere around the world — if I'm making the sequel to 'Unbreakable,'" he laughed. "I love that movie. 'Unbreakable' and 'The Village' are my favorite two movies of mine."

i love unbreakable. it's the only m. night movie i can say that about. great great movie.

but didn't he already say he originally planned it as a trilogy, and the reason he changed his mind is what he perceived as "no love for unbreakable"?

i wonder what changed his mind. and how different will this be from his original idea of a trilogy?

Unbreakable is perfect.

Best contemporary super hero movie ever. Chris Nolan watched this and took notes. It's a great, great film. So good.

Quote from: Stefen on September 05, 2010, 02:03:50 AM
Unbreakable is perfect.

Best contemporary super hero movie ever. Chris Nolan watched this and took notes. It's a great, great film. So good.

No way!  It's so stale.  It's just a recycled Sixth Sense. 
I've said this a million times and will probably never stop having knee-jerk reactions to people thinking Unbreakable is good.

I didn't like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable and Signs are the only ones of his I like, and I can admit that Signs isn't very good, but I like the genre of contemporary sci-fi that doesn't go all out.

I just think Unbreakable is really fantastic. I love the story, I love the atmosphere, I think it's the perfect Bruce Willis role. I like the comic parallels that are set in a realistic world. It has flaws, but so does every movie. I thought it was silly how David can just see all the things people did wrong. I thought that was kind of a copout, and I don't like how Elijah and Audrey meet, but overall, I think it's really, really good. I liked it when I first saw it and after re-watching it recently, I still like it.

So, for this show I'm working on, I have to watch "The Happening" a number of times.

A new theory I have about it is that Mark Wahlberg thought his role was more comedic at the beginning of the shoot.  It seems like he's really trying to be funny at the start of the movie and I recently read it was shot sequentially so that would make sense.

Just a random thought.

He keeps being funny by the end. Unintentionally so.

UNBREAKABLE is really cool. The day to day, normal daily life it presents everything: the marital crisis, the unfulfilment in bruce willis's character. it's so well done it's hard to even imagine the same guy who did that did the fucking happening.

M. Night Shyamalan To Direct 'One Thousand A.E.,' Jaden Smith Linked To Lead
Source: The Playlist

M. Night Didn't Write It, But The Guy Who Wrote 'Book Of Eli' Did With his name getting laughter and boos when it appeared in the trailer for "Devil" earlier this year, and his last few films facing the wrath of critics, M. Night Shyamalan continues to laugh all the way to the bank as his films—whether he directs or produces them—make money, and really, that's all the studios care about. And speak of studios and money, it's no surprise that Jaden Smith is now the Hollywood golden child after dominating the box office this summer with the surprise sensation, "The Karate Kid." The pint sized Smith progeny is now eying M. Night Shyamalan's next feature film titled "One Thousand A.E." with the project being developed with the actor in mind. The film is actually different than the one Shyamalan shopped around Hollywood this summer with Bruce Willis, Bradley Cooper and Gwyneth Paltrow loosely attached. Instead, this one comes from writer Gary Whitta and if you're thinking, "Ok, at least Shyamalan will get a decent script," keep those expectations in check. Whitta is the guy responsible for "The Book Of Eli" so yeah, don't expect this one to tax your brain too much. The project is set up with Overbrook which is a production shingle run by Will Smith, James Lassiter, Ken Stovitz and Jada Pinkett Smith. So yeah, momma and poppa Smith will be making sure it's up to their rigorous standards before their spawn signs on. There is also an older male lead role available, but Will Smith is not expected to take it. Plot details are being kept under lock and key and while no studio is attached, Sony has a first look deal with Overbrook and is expected to pick it up. No details yet on production timelines but we'd wager that once Jaden Smith signs on, wheels will move quickly to get it in front of cameras.

M. Night Shyamalan & Will Smith's 'One Thousand A.E.' To Hit Theaters On June 7, 2013
Source: Playlist

It has been three long years since Will Smith, arguably one of the biggest movie stars on the planet, was last on the big screen. In 2008 we saw two sides of the thesp: the blockbuster star in "Hancock" and the awards season contender in "Seven Pounds." Neither film quite lived up to expectations though they were successful, but for his next couple projects, Will Smith is determined to bring home the bacon. Next year he'll be back with his mega-franchise in tow for "Men In Black III" and he won't be keeping fans waiting as 2013 will once again see him at a theater near you.

Though word has been quiet on the project, things are ramping up for M. Night Shyamalan's "One Thousand A.E." which in case you forgot will pair father and son, Will and Jaden Smith. Details are being kept tight, but the story will follow a young boy and his estranged father who crash land on a planet and have to explore to it. Last year, all Jaden would reveal is "it's set in the future and it's about a journey." Duh.

The movie will now hit theaters on June 7, 2013, arriving one week before Zack Snyder's "Man of Steel." You already know how we feel about M. Night Shyamalan but Will Smith tends to be very picky, so we presume there is something here that he likes (and no doubt he'll be hiring folks to fine tune the script to his tastes). Filming is slated to begin in early 2012.

Yeah Will Smith, you turn down Tarantino's next project to work with M. Night, that's what you do. ( I'm glad you did that )

A Fan Of 'Tree of Life' & 'Jurassic Park?' Then You'll Love 'After Earth' Says M. Night Shyamalan
Source: Playlist

While Twitter remains a vital tool for filmmakers to reach out to audiences worldwide, there are some public figures for which the medium just seems ill-fitted. Directors like Kevin Smith and Edgar Wright have their sensibilities precisely tuned to the format, but on the other end of the spectrum, M. Night Shyamalan, who quietly casts out filmmaking advice and shout-outs to followers, just seems peculiarly distant after maintaining a veil of secrecy for so long. Still, updates on his latest film, "After Earth," have offered a compelling view from his perspective, the latest of which finds the director making some bold proclamations in addition to ruminating on his ambitions in the filmmaking realm.

With his new movie heading into post-production, Shyamalan took the time on Twitter to express feelings of pressure around his sci-fi drama, where the focus now moves to handing shots over to talented visual effects teams for completion. "This is a very difficult and counter intuitive process," the director explained, "I haven't even edited the film thoroughly and I'm committing to takes." Shyamalan is no stranger to the complications of effects work in post-production, but "After Earth," with its futuristic plotline and environments, looks to be especially difficult in this regard. Besides, effects teams need all the time they can get to perfect their individual shots, and oftentimes they come right down to the wire to deliver a final addition (for example, witness just how much of "The Avengers'" finale was incomplete in the film's first trailer).

Still, after much public exchange with his followers, Shyamalan went beyond production woes to a much more personal place, where he elaborated on the vision behind all his films, that of large-scale CGI dynamics combined with performance-driven stories. "This has been my problem from go," he said, "I keep trying to make indie dramas in the bodies of high concept movies. Tough serving two masters." Obviously we've seen this difficult effort in previous films like "Lady in the Water" and "The Happening," but "After Earth," which follows Will and Jaden Smith as a father and son returning to Earth a millennium after its abandonment, could prove to break that streak. Shyamalan seems pretty confident about it at least, and even narrows down his key demographic by saying, "Maybe the tag line should be, 'If you loved 'Tree of Life' and 'Jurassic Park,' you'll love 'After Earth.' "

It's an intriguing teaser for the upcoming film, which also stars Isabelle Fuhrman, Sophie Okonedo and Zoe Kravitz, so possibly expect some Berlioz and empathetic dinosaurs when "After Earth" opens June 7, 2013.

A fan of gourmet food? Then you'll love this shit sandwich, says M. Night Shyamalan.

I wasn't a fan of Tree of life so I know this movie will be fucking shit.

All I get from that comparison is it's gonna have dinosaurs in it.

Which makes no sense since the movie is supposedly set in the future.

Quote from: Pubrick on May 29, 2012, 11:50:23 AM
Which makes no sense

Quote from: Pubrick on May 29, 2012, 11:50:23 AM
makes no sense

Quote from: Pubrick on May 29, 2012, 11:50:23 AM
Makes No Sense

M. Night Shyamalan Jumping Into Scripted TV With Syfy Project (Exclusive)
UPDATED: Marti Noxon is also attached to produce, with Shyamalan possibly directing.
Source: THR

Syfy is getting into business with feature filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan.

The cable network has given a put-pilot commitment to a project from Shyamalan and Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Marti Noxon titled Proof, marking his first foray into scripted television, The Hollywood Reporter has learned exclusively.

Shyamalan, who made his mark with The Sixth Sense, would direct the Universal Cable Productions project.

Proof centers on the son of a billionaire tech genius who offers a large reward for anyone who can find proof of life after death following the tragic accident and sudden passing of his parents.

Shyamalan and Noxon will co-write the project and serve as EPs. Ashwin Rajan, of Shyamalan's Blinding Eagle, will also serve as an exec producer.

Shyamalan's jump to the small screen comes after Syfy renewed Total Blackout and Lost Girl, opted not to move forward with Sanctuary and bid farewell to long-time series Eureka. He also has some history at the network. In 2004, the then-called Sci Fi Channel was involved in a controversial "special," The Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan, that ended up being a marketing ploy for The Village.

Shyamalan recently wrapped Sony's After Earth with Will and Jaden Smith. Noxon, who counts Mad Men, Glee and Grey's Anatomy, as some of her other TV credits, is penning The Glass Castle adaptation for Lionsgate and Gil Netter.

UCP is behind shows like USA's Psych, Suits and Royal Pains, and Syfy's upcoming Defiance, Eureka and Alphas.

M. Night Shyamalan, 'After Earth' Director, On A Sequel To 'Unbreakable' And His Relationship With Critics
Mike Ryan; Huffington Post

M. Night Shyamalan is the director of the new Will Smith movie, "After Earth." This is a fact that you might not be aware of, because Shyamalan is not a major aspect of the film's marketing campaign. It's a twist from how things were for the 42-year-old director in the aftermath of 1999's "The Sixth Sense," when Shyamalan's name alone was often enough to sell his movies. Following an impressive run of critical and financial successes ("The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," "Signs"), the waters have cooled a bit for Shyamalan over his last few movies ("The Lady in the Water," "The Happening," "The Last Airbender").

In person, Shyamalan is about as cordial as they come. When we met on Wednesday afternoon, he was wearing an Iron Man t-shirt; it made him seem approachable and endearing. So did this: Shyamalan was tipped off that May 29 was my birthday, so no matter how contentious the below conversation seems to get at times, keep in mind that it ended with him and me eating a cupcake.
Before the interview, I was told that nothing was off limits. So, with that, we started talking.

You're looking through Life magazines.

It's so cool, man. Look how beautiful Cybil Shepard was during "The Last Picture Show," which is one of my favorite movies.

I wouldn't have guessed that.

It's all tone. Bogdanovich, his control of tone is insane.

Most people remember Shepard from "Moonlighting."

She was amazing in "Moonlighting," but, this movie ... she's more powerful than the movie and your heart is taken away with this not-so-glamorous girl.

This is my segue, but speaking of tone, "After Earth" doesn't have the typical tone that we are used to from you.
Well, I think it's a hybrid, right?

There are moments.

Moments, yeah. Quiet kind of has its place in the movie -- you know, the quiet stillness and the introspective stuff. Which I think we're talking about, that kind of tonal thing. You know, it's interesting: I think my movies are primarily dramas -- you know, 70 percent drama and 30 percent whatever the genre is -- and then normally they're sold on that genre piece. And that causes a weird reaction of, "Oh my God, I didn't know it was 70 percent this other thing." And this time it's at least 50/50.

But this one seems less your movie than what we've seen in the past since probably "Stuart Little." This has been publicized as Will Smith's movie.

I don't know if I'd say that as much. "Stuart Little" would be the one that I just kind of embraced it, but, to some extent, that was a lot me, too -- the tone that came through. I've become a version of whomever I'm working with, to some extent. Does that make sense?

How so?

Like if I'm working with Scott Rudin on "The Village," I start leaning more that way in the way I'm thinking a lot -- so, I'm more toward that person, my partner, a lot. And, on this one, it was Will.

But I feel like something like "The Sixth Sense," you can say, "This is my vision. This is my movie."

Yeah, from the beginning.

But I feel on this one Will Smith can tell you, "No, I'm looking to do it this way. Do that for me."

I think the balance of it was that he left me mostly to my devices in terms of how to portray the character's journey. So, I'd say, "Well, maybe he gets poisoned by a leech." I remember writing that sequence. And I think Will's influence specifically would be seen, say, in an action scene where I would stop at "two" and we might go "three" or "four" -- go one more beat in the action. And I definitely learned from that in terms of -- I'm a big self-analysis guy, making sure I go through therapy all of the time with myself.

What's that mean?

You know, that's what making a movie is: therapy for me.

Which movie is the most therapeutic?

They're all.

Equally?

Yeah, they're all like that. They all represent where I am. Does that make sense? And in this one, working on this movie -- I have two types of minimalism. I love, really love, to be minimum. Left to my own devices, I'd definitely do "The Tree of Life." That's where I would go. I'd love to do that -- ambiguous and quiet and all that stuff.

Do you consider yourself a filmmaker like Malick?

Well, he's so courageous. I don't know if I'm quite as courageous as him.

How so?

You know, there's a kind on insinuation that we were talking about with "The Last Picture Show," just a tone. There's very little plot in "The Last Picture Show." It's not based on plot. The plot comes in and out, but your driving force is tone. A lot of Malick's movies and especially "The Tree of Life" for me -- I can't tell you that I knew exactly what was going on, but emotionally I was 100 percent there. So, he was working on a subconscious level.

Let's say you made a Terrence Malick-type movie. Do you think it would have been better received, say, right after "Unbreakable" came out or now? That people would have given you more of a shot back then with something so abstract and that critics would be more unfair today?

God, I don't know. I've come to think of it more as a body of work. That's the way I've always thought about it to some extent, but it's the healthiest way to continue to think about it rather than kind of going on each one in its particular context at that moment and its particular expectations of that moment. Those can be driven by the marketing, those can be driven by the previous movie, it can be driven by other movies -- you know, that kind of thing.

Do you feel that critics have turned on you?

[Laughs] No, no. I definitely think that they're seeing it more -- I think it will be easier to see in a body of work, I think.

You had a critic character in "Lady in the Water."

I don't feel an adversarial relationship to them -- I goof around with them in "Lady in the Water."

But you see why some critics take that as a personal attack? He's brutally killed.

[Laughs] I know.

And you cast yourself as the writer with the important vision.

Well, it was all about storytelling. And all about kind of all the aspects of storytelling -- that movie's main character is named "Story" and all of that stuff. I mean, it was a tongue-in-cheek movie.

Could "The Sixth Sense" be a phenomenon today? With the Internet, could it have kept its secret for as long as it did.

I don't know. It would have been difficult, I think, today. It would have been difficult. For sure the headline on Twitter would have been like "surprise ending," right? Or "I didn't guess the ending." It immediately orients you in a different way to it. I don't think it would have been the same experience in today's market. The fact is, it was very lucky timing. It was right before the Internet became a real, real place where everyone constantly went. I remember it at the time, it wasn't even talked about when we put that movie out.

I remember I had no desire to see it at first because it looked too much like "Mercury Rising," Bruce Willis' other movie with a child actor.

"Mercury Rising"? I'm trying to remember it.

Then the word of mouth came.

Right. It would be different, one way or the other. In some ways, it could have been recommended faster. So, it could have been that or it could have been talked about in the wrong way too quickly.

Did you ever feel caught up in having to have a twist? Did you ever feel that you had to do it?

No, I never -- I don't think like that.

A lot of your movies have twists.

They do. So, in my mind, if it turned out that I did 10 movies and seven of them had twists, that's great.

You never thought, I need to stump the audience again?

No. I don't ever think of it like that. That's kind of outside-inside thinking where it's really none of them are that. None of them are a gimmick.

I don't think they're a gimmick. But I wonder if there's something internal that makes you want to one-up yourself.

Not at all. Not at all. What I'm trying to say is it's not an outside thinking thing. This is the story of a young reporter who is turning 39 and he wants the day of his birthday to be amazing.

I fear this is going to end badly for me.

I'm going to tell it from the point of view of the person that didn't know him. And then I reveal the story, reveal what your actual plan was for your birthday. An angle on the story rather than thinking of it like like I need to have a twist. It's what's the most provocative angle to tell the story? And from that, it becomes a revelation of another part of the story. So it's more of a paradigm shift in how to tell the story than it is thinking of it as a gimmick.

You've gotten away from that in your last couple of movies.

I don't think of it like that. You know, my first two movies before "The Sixth Sense" were just straight movies -- and "Signs" was a straight movie. And "Lady in the Water" was a straight movie, in that way. Although there are revelations in those movies.

You tried to make "Life of Pi." Was it hard at all to watch Ang Lee win an Oscar for Best Director for that movie?

No. You know, there are so many movies that I wish I had made. And Ang doing it is like the perfect ending to that story for me.

That's a nice thing to say, but how?

He's my hero. All of his movies, even before "The Ice Storm" -- which I think is a masterpiece -- just to have someone that I think is a master-level storyteller to take that story, which is a boy from Pondicherry [in India], where I was born ... You know, I love that movie a lot and I love that book a lot. It means a lot. It was nice to see things work out for everybody. It's happy, as opposed to if it was done by somebody that I didn't like or didn't think as highly of. I would have felt bad about the situation.

Is there a movie that you wish you could have another shot at or film a different way? A movie that audience didn't respond to as well as you had hoped.

Well, you always have a way of making it more accessible. Always. The decision is always between "accessible" and "authentic."

What's an example?

Well, let's say, for example, like a difficult decision for the main characters -- let's say at the end of "The Village" -- a difficult decision to continue the lie versus the youth becoming free. And winning the day. And realizing their opportunities of being able to come into the light of the real world and to a Times Square kind of vibe. So, that would be provocative and empowering, but I chose to make it morally ambiguous. But it was more authentic to me. My whole conversation with that movie was I'm nervous about the world.

What specifically?

Living out the fantasy of protecting your children and how far would you go to protect your children from everything. "Would you lie to them about everything?" kind of thing. So, that was the premise of this story. So, you know what's an authentic decision for the artist versus what's the more accessible decision. That's the struggle you make all of the time in your commerce versus art conversation.

There's been talk of an "Unbreakable" sequel for a long time.

Yeah.

Samuel L. Jackson seems to want to do it. I saw you two talking on Twitter.

It's a harder one for me because -- it's getting closer, by the way.

I feel like I've heard that for the past 10 years. I want that to be true.

I want it to happen, too. We've been talking about almost the same subject in every one of your questions, which is artistic integrity -- something versus an agenda. Right? And almost every single one of your questions was agenda versus intention, even though you didn't realize it, but it kind of fell into that theme as we were talking.

Agenda how?

So, like you think I go and I write, "Oh, I'm going to write a twist ending."

I didn't know. That's why I asked.

That's an agenda versus "I want to talk about loneliness." And then it comes out, "How is the best way to talk about loneliness?" Intention versus agenda. And then I go, "Oh my God, if I make a movie about loneliness and everybody hated it, will it be able to come out and people will get it?" That's when you start going, "Oh my God," and you try to push that away. The same thing with "Unbreakable," to some extent, it's excitement to be made. "It's such a fun thing" is squashing my ability to find the thing that's connecting me with it. Does that make sense? So, I don't feel like I did it for agenda reasons. So, slowly I'm getting a story in my head that I feel like is able to tell what I'm feeling right now.

For people who like that movie, it sounds encouraging.

Yeah, it is! The story of a guy who kind of wakes up with a little gray feeling in the morning, I love that character. It's something that I feel and I want to talk more about that character.

Another is a possible sequel to "The Last Airbender." A movie that critics didn't like, but it did make a lot of money.

Yeah, I love the kind of Eastern philosophies of that. Those are costly movies to make and they take a lot of time. So, what happens is, there's a thriller I can do pretty fast, they go quickly. And I didn't expect to make another big movie -- I was going to make a thriller and then go make the sequel to "Airbender." Then I made "After Earth," which took a long time, so it kind of took that two-and-a-half to three-year period. So, I'm trying to sit down and see if I want to do a really small movie next.

Honestly, I'd love to see you do a really small movie.

I am really leaning towards doing a hyper-small movie.

Like something on the festival circuit.

Yep. And that's where my head is right now, by the way. I'm leaning towards that.

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 29, 2012, 08:11:16 AM
A Fan Of 'Tree of Life' Chris Nolan & 'Jurassic Park?' Paul Thomas Anderson? Then You'll Love 'After Earth' Says M. Night Shyamalan

Shyamalan seems like a pleasant enough guy. It's a shame he's such a buffoon.

Quote from: polkablues on May 30, 2013, 03:57:38 PM
Shyamalan seems like a pleasant enough guy. It's a shame he's such a buffoon.

I met an Art Director who's worked on some big films and through a conversation about his job he started to talk about M. Night Shyamalan. I don't think he worked on the Last Airbender but knew some that did and said he's very difficult to work with cause he can't listen to the advice and suggestions from anyone else working on the film. He made the point of saying M Night is a nice guy and not a complete psycho like Micheal Bay. The conversation then went to how Michael Bay really is crazy and you'd be on his set and he'll just start screaming out demands like "I want everyone on the other side of the river!" " I want that house on fire!"

'Sixth Sense's M. Night Shyamalan, Bruce Willis Re-Team For 'Labor Of Love'
BY MIKE FLEMING JR | Deadline
   
EXCLUSIVE: M. Night Shyamalan is in talks to re-team with Bruce Willis in Labor Of Love, based on one of the very first scripts Shyamalan sold in his career. The project will be financed by Emmett/Furla/Oasis, which is coming off the twice Oscar-nominated hit Lone Survivor and is prepping the Martin Scorsese-directed Silence. The plan is to start production mid-September in Philadelphia. IM Global's Stuart Ford is making a deal to sell the picture in Berlin. Randall Emmett and George Furla are producing with Blinding Edge's Shyamalan and Ashwin Rajan.

Shyamalan and Willis made The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, which are my two favorite films by the director. This project goes back even further, as it was one of the very first screenplays that Shyamalan sold. This one went to Fox in 1993, but it didn't get made back then because Shyamalan was fighting to get into the director's chair and the studio wasn't biting. The script came into play several years ago when Denzel Washington was eyeing it.

It's a lot closer to Shyamalan's first script Praying With Anger than the supernatural stuff he did later. In Labor Of Love, Willis will play a Philadelphia book store owner who loses the love of  his life in a tragic accident. Never big on words, he becomes haunted by the notion that he never properly told his wife how much he loved her. Since she once asked if he would walk across the country for her, he decides to show her posthumously just how much he did love her. That trek starts from Philadelphia to Pacifica, CA, which was her favorite place. Fox controls the script, but I'm told this is being worked out and should be all sorted by next month when it becomes a hot title in Berlin.

Quote from: MacGuffin on January 29, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
Since she once asked if he would walk across the country for her, he decides to show her posthumously just how much he did love her. That trek starts from Philadelphia to Pacifica, CA, which was her favorite place.

Aha. So it's UP?

We need a new term for failing upward.