A good Whodunit SHOULD get the audience trying to guess. If your defense of his movies is to say, "You shouldn't try to figure it out...Just enjoy it," you are asking the audience to be a passive element, which I would think, given M. Night Shamylan's pretensions, he would HATE. He would want the audience to try to figure it out, and always be one step ahead. The problem is, he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.
i am saying just sit and watch it. My point is this...in The Village the story is moving you along with the character interplay and each small sub plot within, the red, and eventually the girl's 'journey'. If you are sitting there thinking...man he is a bad filmmaker because he thinks he's so cool and he sure isnt the next Hitchcock like they thought he was in that interview your are missing out. If you are predicting the future you are missing out.
The adults were trying to preserve something that was far gone in the outside world to provide something that they thought was safe, sacred, and the right thing for their future generations (no amish). If you're too busy saying those screws in the coffin couldn't have possibly been from the time period they are supposed to be resembling then you are not being an attentive element, you are scrutinizing what has nothing to do with the story, emotional effect he is trying to get out of the audience, or the point he was trying to make.
Plus, you can't tell me that scene where Adrian Brody figures out that the bad color is inside of all of them after he stabs Johnny Cash isn't good. It says tons about what the 2nd generation villagers were being taught and the holes that were created because these people tried to create a world that was outside of one that was natural.
Two polos and Mayer blues = pure baggery.
I'm not going to argue specifics on the Village, because I didn't see it. But, the reason I didn't see it is because I figured out the gimick from the preview, and by that time, I had seen all his previous films and thought them terdly.
All that aside...I think your 'just sit and watch it,' is wrong. I'll leave it at that. Hitchcock, who Shamylan is shamelessly apeing, wanted you to try and guess; he wanted to make the movie playful and interactive. And, he wanted to serve up a good surprise in the end. To tell the audience, "Wait...don't think too hard, just trust that I have some trick up my sleeve," is the WORST sort of gimickery, and it treats the audience as if they are stupid. Fuck that, I am not interested.
It is John Mayer-esque movie wankery.
EDIT: I guess I didn't just, 'leave it at that'.
i'm not saying 'Don't think too hard' i am saying if you're sitting there trying to figure out whats coming an hour or so later you are missing out on what else is happening. i am defending The Village because i enjoyed it. The fact that you figured out the ending from the trailer and didnt even need to see any of the good scenes or hear the violin stuff earns you my undying respect. i am 'leaving it at that' too because i am rolling out of work in a little bit. i feel where you people are coming from, hopefully you at least consider where i'm coming from.
Hey man, if you like then like it. No sweat off my balls; I really only took exception with the 'just sit and watch' part.
And, while it may ruin some of that undying respect, I did see his first three movies, which had a LARGE part in why I didn't go see his fourth, nor will I see his fifth.
No doubt. If you have any interest in that actual theory i can get the specifics to you from one of the books i have at home. It is a little more (less?) involved then just sit and watch, but it deals with taking the film in on the terms that it only exists as long as it is on the screen.
Anyhow, i can see where people don't like his stuff and i certainly see how that is possible. This was a good time and i always appreciate getting out of work mode for a while.
I loved all his films. Maybe not Signs which had a lot to do with the casting. Even loved The Village. I think the guy is a major talent.
The Village was weak. I mean did anyone else catch the scene where the boom mic drops down into the frame. TWICE. WTF?
[filmgeekmode] Did you see it in widescreen or fullscreen? I say that because some films are filmed in Super35mm which is a process that films in a 3:4 ratio (TV size) but crops it down to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 for projecting at theaters. However, when they display it in fullscreen on television sets the cropped out part is revealed. Sometimes that cropped area has mics visible because they know it won't be seen in theaters. Still, I agree. Any modern filmmaker should know that it will show up on TV screens. [/filmgeekmode]
No I saw it in the theater and I want my fucking money back.
The same thing happened to me in Sideways. I saw it in a second-run theatre, and the boom wasn't cropped or edited out. It got to the point that, after the 30th time I saw it, I didn't even notice it. I'm still not sure if it was a cropping thing or simply a cheaper reel to rent for the theatre.
the people that dont like his movies are probably the same people that love hollywood remakes or "family classics" like johnson family terdation.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Part of the enjoyment gleaned from any whodunnit type of films - be it murder mysteries, slasher pics, whatever - is the ability to say you guessed it before the end. It makes you feel better about yourself because you think that it makes you x amount more intelligent than the people who are surprised by the twist. Whereas in actuality, that makes you x amount stupider, because you have done precisely what the director intended you to do in the first place, but subsequently sat through something that you're not even enjoying, purely to flatter yourself.
I don't expect anyone to believe this, but I managed to figure out the twist in "Sixth Sense" from the trailer. I like mysteries/whodunnits as much as the next armchair movie buff, but it's the pretentious, quasi-mystical/spiritual bullshit that Shyamalan dresses his flicks up in that I have a problem with, especially in the case of "The Village" (SPOILER ALERT), which I thought was pretty fucking reactionary - pity the poor motherfuckers who aren't well-heeled or well-educated enough that they can afford the luxury of withdrawing from the rest of society into some sub-Amish fantasyland where the mean, nasty world can't touch them. Shyamalan's pictures are the cinematic equivalent of a Coldplay record - a succession of grand, sweeping gestures that give the impression of something profoundly deep, but which on closer examination are actually pretty trite and lacking in any real substance.
If a magician's only trick is pulling a rabbit out of his hat then its gonna be a pretty boring show. M's rabbit is the "suprise twist at the end". I liked the 6th sense, and after that I was looking forward to seeing more movies from him, but looking back, they've all been boring and forgettable.
He should start making family comedies with Ice Cube.
If a magician's only trick is pulling a rabbit out of his hat then its gonna be a pretty boring show. M's rabbit is the "suprise twist at the end". I liked the 6th sense, and after that I was looking forward to seeing more movies from him, but looking back, they've all been boring and forgettable.
He should start making family comedies with Ice Cube.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
If a magician's only trick is pulling a rabbit out of his hat then its gonna be a pretty boring show. M's rabbit is the "suprise twist at the end". I liked the 6th sense, and after that I was looking forward to seeing more movies from him, but looking back, they've all been boring and forgettable.
He should start making family comedies with Ice Cube.
If a magician's only trick is pulling a rabbit out of his hat then its gonna be a pretty boring show. M's rabbit is the "suprise twist at the end". I liked the 6th sense, and after that I was looking forward to seeing more movies from him, but looking back, they've all been boring and forgettable.
He should start making family comedies with Ice Cube.
[filmgeekmode] Did you see it in widescreen or fullscreen? I say that because some films are filmed in Super35mm which is a process that films in a 3:4 ratio (TV size) but crops it down to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 for projecting at theaters. However, when they display it in fullscreen on television sets the cropped out part is revealed. Sometimes that cropped area has mics visible because they know it won't be seen in theaters. Still, I agree. Any modern filmmaker should know that it will show up on TV screens. [/filmgeekmode]
waaiittasecond... this seems like the reverse of what i always understood - when you shoot in 35mm, its not in 3:4, its in 1.85:1 (or 2.35:1) (i dont know which to be honest, but i do know it could be either, and that the very widest format is Cinemascope, isnt that an 80mm print or somethng? i know that only some theaters can properly show films in that "extra wide" proportion) anyway...they have to 'pan and scan' it to get the wider proportion down to 3:4 for regular tvs...and therefore you are indeed not seeing the "whole picture"... this is why we see the "black bars" when we watch a widescreen dvd on a reg tv....now with the widescreen/HD tvs, the proportion matches and it looks correct.
i guess what im saying is:
if a director leaves a mistake in the movie (like a microphone etc), and its near one side, its possible it could be "removed" for the 3:4 version as it would be cropped out (so long as it doesnt make for a jerky looking pan)
BUT
theres no way in my view that you would see a mistake in 3:4 that you DONT see in 1.85:1 (or 2.35:1)...its just impossible?!?!? yes?
therefore, M. Night Shamalamadingdong needs to get it together.
edit: i see you were referring to super35mm which i understand starts with 3:4... (though that seems like a dumb way to shoot... i guess in the era of made-for-tv movies that makes sense) ... but i guess another point would be why would M.Night (or any director intending his work to be shown on a big screen (widescreen)) use such a totally inappropriate format? and if they did, why would they foolishly not forsee future 3:4 issues with their mistakes, and thus just avoid making them in the first place?)
This is an attempt to collect a debt. Our records show that you owe - soulonice[/b] - two minutes of his life. Please make good on this debt immediately, as we are charged to collect by any means possible.
The only flick of his that I really liked was "Signs".
blah....that's the movie that did it for me. the idea of some alien super-race coming a gazillion miles to earth to destroy the human race only to not realize that they die if water gets on them!!!!!
This is an attempt to collect a debt. Our records show that you owe - soulonice[/b] - two minutes of his life. Please make good on this debt immediately, as we are charged to collect by any means possible.
blah....that's the movie that did it for me. the idea of some alien super-race coming a gazillion miles to earth to destroy the human race only to not realize that they die if water gets on them!!!!!
i've never seen this movie but this sounds suspiciously like mars attacks. except with water instead of bad country music.
blah....that's the movie that did it for me. the idea of some alien super-race coming a gazillion miles to earth to destroy the human race only to not realize that they die if water gets on them!!!!!
i've never seen this movie but this sounds suspiciously like mars attacks. except with water instead of bad country music.
exactly...only Signs didn't have Jim Brown or Pam Grier in it to make it appealing.
and at least bad country music was an outlier in the "things that will kill us" category.
but, you travel a million miles to attack humans and you don't even think about what makes up 2/3rd of the world. psshhh...
[filmgeekmode] Did you see it in widescreen or fullscreen? I say that because some films are filmed in Super35mm which is a process that films in a 3:4 ratio (TV size) but crops it down to 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 for projecting at theaters. However, when they display it in fullscreen on television sets the cropped out part is revealed. Sometimes that cropped area has mics visible because they know it won't be seen in theaters. Still, I agree. Any modern filmmaker should know that it will show up on TV screens. [/filmgeekmode]
waaiittasecond... this seems like the reverse of what i always understood - when you shoot in 35mm, its not in 3:4, its in 1.85:1 (or 2.35:1) (i dont know which to be honest, but i do know it could be either, and that the very widest format is Cinemascope, isnt that an 80mm print or somethng? i know that only some theaters can properly show films in that "extra wide" proportion) anyway...they have to 'pan and scan' it to get the wider proportion down to 3:4 for regular tvs...and therefore you are indeed not seeing the "whole picture"... this is why we see the "black bars" when we watch a widescreen dvd on a reg tv....now with the widescreen/HD tvs, the proportion matches and it looks correct.
When shooting in 35mm it's always in 3:4 ratio (or a very close proximity). It's been that way since the 20's I believe. The advent of wider ratio's was a gimmick to attract people to movies and compete against TV.
Anamorphic filming (2.35:1) is a means of filming in that actual ratio and squeezing the image onto a 3:4 film cell. When it's projected a special lens in used to unsqueeze it. Sometimes theaters will attach 1.85:1 ratio film trailers to a 2.35:1 ratio film and you'll actually see them flip the lense.
You can have a 2.35:1 on Super 35mm as well. CASINO I know was filmed that way.
i guess what im saying is:
if a director leaves a mistake in the movie (like a microphone etc), and its near one side, its possible it could be "removed" for the 3:4 version as it would be cropped out (so long as it doesnt make for a jerky looking pan)
Yes, but that's not what I mean. We're talking about mistakes in the top frame like boom mics dipping into the shoot.
BUT
theres no way in my view that you would see a mistake in 3:4 that you DONT see in 1.85:1 (or 2.35:1)...its just impossible?!?!? yes?
therefore, M. Night Shamalamadingdong needs to get it together.
edit: i see you were referring to super35mm which i understand starts with 3:4... (though that seems like a dumb way to shoot... i guess in the era of made-for-tv movies that makes sense) ... but i guess another point would be why would M.Night (or any director intending his work to be shown on a big screen (widescreen)) use such a totally inappropriate format? and if they did, why would they foolishly not forsee future 3:4 issues with their mistakes, and thus just avoid making them in the first place?)
Most movies are filmed in Super35 because video is such a huge market now. A director probably needs to have a lot of clout in this industry to even be able to film in 2.35:1 although you can film in 2.35:1 and still use Super35 (Casino again).
Yes, a director should forsee these problems. Often if you see these problems in a theater it may be bad framing by the projectionist. When you see it on video it's just bad altogether.
blah....that's the movie that did it for me. the idea of some alien super-race coming a gazillion miles to earth to destroy the human race only to not realize that they die if water gets on them!!!!!
i've never seen this movie but this sounds suspiciously like mars attacks. except with water instead of bad country music.
exactly...only Signs didn't have Jim Brown or Pam Grier in it to make it appealing.
and at least bad country music was an outlier in the "things that will kill us" category.
but, you travel a million miles to attack humans and you don't even think about what makes up 2/3rd of the world. psshhh...
well shit, ive been skooled. thanks DJArcadian and Cahoots.
thats one of the handiest graphics ive ever seen! its all so clear to me now. man, the tv image in cinemascope sure gets the shaft! i guess that accounts for those squished showings of star wars on tv many years go?
the one thing i like about him, is how he always sneaks 4 or 5 brown people in every movie into the background... in roles that have no relevance to the plot. if it were anyone else's movie, you would be like "why the phuck are there so many south asians in this movie???"
i have to say dude has seriously fallen off, each movie he has done has gotten progressivly worse since sixth sense. looks like a one trick pony. village was pure garbage...
sixth sense 9 unbreakable 7 signs 6 village 1
lady in the lake looks interesting though, probably a terd.
have there even been any good movies released this year in theaters? i have yet to see one...oh wait i've only seen one movie in theaters this year anyways...
Comments
I make a similar face when achieving orgasm.
No doubt. If you have any interest in that actual theory i can get the specifics to you from one of the books i have at home. It is a little more (less?) involved then just sit and watch, but it deals with taking the film in on the terms that it only exists as long as it is on the screen.
Anyhow, i can see where people don't like his stuff and i certainly see how that is possible. This was a good time and i always appreciate getting out of work mode for a while.
The same thing happened to me in Sideways. I saw it in a second-run theatre, and the boom wasn't cropped or edited out. It got to the point that, after the 30th time I saw it, I didn't even notice it. I'm still not sure if it was a cropping thing or simply a cheaper reel to rent for the theatre.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I don't expect anyone to believe this, but I managed to figure out the twist in "Sixth Sense" from the trailer. I like mysteries/whodunnits as much as the next armchair movie buff, but it's the pretentious, quasi-mystical/spiritual bullshit that Shyamalan dresses his flicks up in that I have a problem with, especially in the case of "The Village" (SPOILER ALERT), which I thought was pretty fucking reactionary - pity the poor motherfuckers who aren't well-heeled or well-educated enough that they can afford the luxury of withdrawing from the rest of society into some sub-Amish fantasyland where the mean, nasty world can't touch them. Shyamalan's pictures are the cinematic equivalent of a Coldplay record - a succession of grand, sweeping gestures that give the impression of something profoundly deep, but which on closer examination are actually pretty trite and lacking in any real substance.
He should start making family comedies with Ice Cube.
I can see it now........
Are We There Yet Or Was It All A Dream
Hahahaaaaa!
Look Look! You were dead the whole time!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
has anyone copped this?
waaiittasecond... this seems like the reverse of what i always understood - when you shoot in 35mm, its not in 3:4, its in 1.85:1 (or 2.35:1) (i dont know which to be honest, but i do know it could be either, and that the very widest format is Cinemascope, isnt that an 80mm print or somethng? i know that only some theaters can properly show films in that "extra wide" proportion) anyway...they have to 'pan and scan' it to get the wider proportion down to 3:4 for regular tvs...and therefore you are indeed not seeing the "whole picture"... this is why we see the "black bars" when we watch a widescreen dvd on a reg tv....now with the widescreen/HD tvs, the proportion matches and it looks correct.
i guess what im saying is:
if a director leaves a mistake in the movie (like a microphone etc), and its near one side, its possible it could be "removed" for the 3:4 version as it would be cropped out (so long as it doesnt make for a jerky looking pan)
BUT
theres no way in my view that you would see a mistake in 3:4 that you DONT see in 1.85:1 (or 2.35:1)...its just impossible?!?!? yes?
therefore, M. Night Shamalamadingdong needs to get it together.
edit: i see you were referring to super35mm which i understand starts with 3:4... (though that seems like a dumb way to shoot... i guess in the era of made-for-tv movies that makes sense) ... but i guess another point would be why would M.Night (or any director intending his work to be shown on a big screen (widescreen)) use such a totally inappropriate format? and if they did, why would they foolishly not forsee future 3:4 issues with their mistakes, and thus just avoid making them in the first place?)
Dear Ms. Damn:
This is an attempt to collect a debt. Our records show
that you owe - soulonice[/b] - two minutes of his life.
Please make good on this debt immediately, as we are
charged to collect by any means possible.
Sincerely,
Stolen Life Collection Agency
blah....that's the movie that did it for me. the idea of some alien super-race coming a gazillion miles to earth to destroy the human race only to not realize that they die if water gets on them!!!!!
talk about horrible due diligence.
isn't it horrible and enfuriating?
i've never seen this movie but this sounds suspiciously like mars attacks. except with water instead of bad country music.
exactly...only Signs didn't have Jim Brown or Pam Grier in it to make it appealing.
and at least bad country music was an outlier in the "things that will kill us" category.
but, you travel a million miles to attack humans and you don't even think about what makes up 2/3rd of the world. psshhh...
When shooting in 35mm it's always in 3:4 ratio (or a very close proximity). It's been that way since the 20's I believe. The advent of wider ratio's was a gimmick to attract people to movies and compete against TV.
Anamorphic filming (2.35:1) is a means of filming in that actual ratio and squeezing the image onto a 3:4 film cell. When it's projected a special lens in used to unsqueeze it. Sometimes theaters will attach 1.85:1 ratio film trailers to a 2.35:1 ratio film and you'll actually see them flip the lense.
You can have a 2.35:1 on Super 35mm as well. CASINO I know was filmed that way.
Yes, but that's not what I mean. We're talking about mistakes in the top frame like boom mics dipping into the shoot.
Most movies are filmed in Super35 because video is such a huge market now. A director probably needs to have a lot of clout in this industry to even be able to film in 2.35:1 although you can film in 2.35:1 and still use Super35 (Casino again).
Yes, a director should forsee these problems. Often if you see these problems in a theater it may be bad framing by the projectionist. When you see it on video it's just bad altogether.
WHat happens if it's foggy? Do they get a rash?
well shit, ive been skooled. thanks DJArcadian and Cahoots.
thats one of the handiest graphics ive ever seen! its all so clear to me now. man, the tv image in cinemascope sure gets the shaft! i guess that accounts for those squished showings of star wars on tv many years go?
i have to say dude has seriously fallen off, each movie he has done has gotten progressivly worse since sixth sense. looks like a one trick pony. village was pure garbage...
sixth sense 9
unbreakable 7
signs 6
village 1
lady in the lake looks interesting though, probably a terd.
have there even been any good movies released this year in theaters? i have yet to see one...oh wait i've only seen one movie in theaters this year anyways...