I had the sound off when I clicked that. As soon as I got to the part that had "But Going To High School" on screen, I knew I needn't bother watching the rest.
+2
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as such a refreshing direction for a horror film, especially if it doesn't stray too far into the whole supernatural schtick. It plays on a fairly relatable fear (or at least one I can appreciate) of the borderline-creepy/mentally unstable old folks just hopping over the line and going full-blown creepy. Hopefully the entire film's as good as the trailer. Fingers crossed.
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as such a refreshing direction for a horror film, especially if it doesn't stray too far into the whole supernatural schtick. It plays on a fairly relatable fear (or at least one I can appreciate) of the borderline-creepy/mentally unstable old folks just hopping over the line and going full-blown creepy. Hopefully the entire film's as good as the trailer. Fingers crossed.
It's written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
+1
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as such a refreshing direction for a horror film, especially if it doesn't stray too far into the whole supernatural schtick. It plays on a fairly relatable fear (or at least one I can appreciate) of the borderline-creepy/mentally unstable old folks just hopping over the line and going full-blown creepy. Hopefully the entire film's as good as the trailer. Fingers crossed.
It's written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
Yeah, there's that. His track record's not great, but I still like the premise of the film. As long as the grandparents don't turn out to be a future/alternate dimension version of those kids or something similarly ridiculous, it could still be decent.
It looks alright. As long as someone was there to talk him out of the twist being "it's the kids who are crazy" or "Skype is haunted, get out of the house, but who was host server?".
I had the sound off when I clicked that. As soon as I got to the part that had "But Going To High School" on screen, I knew I needn't bother watching the rest.
So the trailer starts out with children assassins (okay, maybe they're Spy Kids... that takes a very specific approach to not be morally horrifying, this movie CLEARLY doesn't have it), but apparently that's the normal/okay part? The weird/plot part is going to high school?
"So this brainwashed war orphan is going to have to start caring about boys and makeup and stuff... before her most recent target comes to get her."
Presumably it ends in a funny school shoot out/knife fight? I'm surprised even DirecTV was okay with allowing it to exist.
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as such a refreshing direction for a horror film, especially if it doesn't stray too far into the whole supernatural schtick. It plays on a fairly relatable fear (or at least one I can appreciate) of the borderline-creepy/mentally unstable old folks just hopping over the line and going full-blown creepy. Hopefully the entire film's as good as the trailer. Fingers crossed.
It's written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
That's literally all anyone needs to know to avoid that thing at all costs.
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as such a refreshing direction for a horror film, especially if it doesn't stray too far into the whole supernatural schtick. It plays on a fairly relatable fear (or at least one I can appreciate) of the borderline-creepy/mentally unstable old folks just hopping over the line and going full-blown creepy. Hopefully the entire film's as good as the trailer. Fingers crossed.
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as such a refreshing direction for a horror film, especially if it doesn't stray too far into the whole supernatural schtick. It plays on a fairly relatable fear (or at least one I can appreciate) of the borderline-creepy/mentally unstable old folks just hopping over the line and going full-blown creepy. Hopefully the entire film's as good as the trailer. Fingers crossed.
It's written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
That's literally all anyone needs to know to avoid that thing at all costs.
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
+4
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
I remember that too - can't remember the movie that the trailer was attached to but there were a few boos and some laughs/snickers. Come to think of it, I never did see that one. The premise didn't really do anything for me.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
I remember that too - can't remember the movie that the trailer was attached to but there were a few boos and some laughs/snickers. Come to think of it, I never did see that one. The premise didn't really do anything for me.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
He eventually left Disney/Touchstone over creative differences after The Village.
He honestly strikes me as someone very similar to Lucas. Good at putting forward ideas with strong potential but in need of others to help shape them and keep him from having complete control for those ideas to be good films.
From a studio perspective his name is still good. His films have either made money or done ok. From his perspective he probably thinks his name should be on the advertising, why wouldn't people want to see his film?
From a studio perspective his name is still good. His films have either made money or done ok. From his perspective he probably thinks his name should be on the advertising, why wouldn't people want to see his film?
He has no credibility. Devil did alright since they buried his name in it. The last time a studio gave him a big budget we got this
That trailer was awful. It'd slide if it was a newcomer but every frame was amateurish. In his prime his trailers were excellent and showed why they deserved to be on the big screen - why isn't this direct to dvd?
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
I remember that too - can't remember the movie that the trailer was attached to but there were a few boos and some laughs/snickers. Come to think of it, I never did see that one. The premise didn't really do anything for me.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
He eventually left Disney/Touchstone over creative differences after The Village.
He honestly strikes me as someone very similar to Lucas. Good at putting forward ideas with strong potential but in need of others to help shape them and keep him from having complete control for those ideas to be good films.
M. Night Shyamalan found a credulous Boswell in Michael Bamberger, a Sports Illustrated scribe willing to inflate every imagined slight the director ever faced into comic levels of bathos. His parents wanted him to go to Princeton, not NYU. Poor guy! Disney execs didn’t fall all over themselves praising his script for “The Lady in the Water.” The nerve! This quickie tome elevates petulance — and hagiography — to dizzying heights. Clearly, the scribe, like the helmer he so adoringly profiles, needs a healthy dose of perspective. Or at least a better project to wrap shared indignation around.
Bamberger, who met Shyamalan at a party for Philadelphia power brokers, seems dazzled by him from the start. “Night’s shirt was half open — Tom Jones in his prime,” he gushes.
The scribe quickly pitches a book aiming to show how the writer-director thinks, and Shyamalan assents. To convey this, Bamberger re-creates the proud and censorious voices inside Shyamalan’s head throughout “Lady’s” gestation. Given Shyamalan’s healthy ego and Bamberger’s penchant for florid flattery, the narrative frequently goes over the top, with Bamberger variously invoking Moses, Michael Jordan, Bob Dylan and Walt Disney when describing Shyamalan.
“Not since Mr. Walt Disney himself had any one director been so associated with Disney,” Bamberger asserts while setting the stage for the Mouse House betrayal.
The scribe rhapsodizes about Shyamalan’s farm, driver and cook, as if no one else on Philadelphia’s affluent Main Line ever engaged the latter two. Bamberger, and, we suspect, Shyamalan, want us to have it both ways; we’re meant to simultaneously sympathize with Shyamalan’s fight against the Mouse House and vicariously admire his wealth.
Aside from pesky writer’s block, the first sign of real trouble emerges when since-ousted Disney exec Nina Jacobson fails to receive Shyamalan’s script — a script so closely guarded his assistant wouldn’t even visit the bathroom on the plane ride to L.A. — at her home the exact moment he dictated.
“What could Nina be doing that’s more important than getting Night’s new script?” Bamberger wonders, using italics to directly invoke the director’s thoughts.
A confab at a Philadelphia restaurant turns even more disastrous when Jacobson, Dick Cook and Oren Aviv criticize Shyamalan’s script. Deciding they wanted him to be a cog, he quickly phones Alan Horn and gets the film set up at Warners.
The rest of the book gives a blow-for-blow account of “Lady’s” production, from casting woes to drunken antics by cinematographer Chris Doyle.
Occasionally, Bamberger allows a slightly reproving tone to creep in, as when he recounts Shyamalan’s churlish behavior to Bryce Dallas Howard during pre-production. When the vegan thesp declines a piece of his birthday cake with the explanation she doesn’t eat anything with animal fat in it, Bamberger writes, “Night was annoyed.” Then when she offered him “a gruesome-looking vegan cake” a few days later, co-star Paul Giamatti ate a piece but Shyamalan passed, saying he wouldn’t eat anything that didn’t have animal fat in it.
“He was joking, but with a hint of hostility,” Bamberger observes.
The scribe then proceeds to outline the way Howard’s technique had changed for the worse since she worked with the director on “The Village.” It’s moments like these that Bamberger’s decision to present events from Shyamalan’s “voice” proves especially maddening; the passage is clearly biased but written in standard third person form normally associated with more balanced reportage.
It’s not always clear who is making which judgment. Is Bamberger as dismissive as Shyamalan of actors’ fussy diets? Does he really believe providing food on location illustrates Shyamalan’s generosity? Has he never heard of craft services? And does he really think Disney grievously dissed Shyamalan by daring to criticize his script?
This technique provides a convenient out for both participants. Bamberger’s insistence that Shyamalan made no suggestions to make himself look better doesn’t remove the inherent murkiness.
Beyond problems of tone, the tome is hugely bloated and would probably have been better served as a lengthy magazine piece. But that way we probably wouldn’t get to read, at such great length, how fabulous Shyamalan is.
Also not clear: Who the audience for this highly selective account is. By rushing this into stores for “Lady’s” bigscreen bow, Bamberger and Gotham Books are banking on sympathy for the director, and his point of view. Will that gamble pay off if the movie tanks? Early reviews suggest Disney, and especially ousted exec Jacobson, were right all along.
Unscripted moment
When Nina Jacobson was not at home to receive M. Night Shyamalan’s script, he took it as an ominous sign. The book describes his reaction:
The lesson of Night’s own 34 years was so clear to him: If you’re a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney — if you’re M. Night Shyamalan — and you have faith and a vision and something original to say, money will come. But if you’re chasing money, the audience will see you for what you are. Night knew his ideas were no longer making an impact on Nina. He was losing her, losing the hold he once had on her. He blamed that on the culture of her corporation. Disney, he realized, in the blind final years of the Michael Eisner regime, had changed. It was now in the business of cloning.
And now, a half-year after “The Village” had run its course, Nina was not home at the appointed time to receive Night’s new script.
JJ called Paula back and said, “I couldn’t get her on her cell phone, but I’ll email her on her BlackBerry.”
Paula waited in her car, stewing, wondering how this delay would affect her other appointments.
A few minutes later, JJ called again. “Nina’s on her way. She should be there in 10 to 15 minutes. She’s just coming back from a birthday party with her son.”
Birthday party? Nobody said anything about a birthday party.
Nina arrived at 2:15 with her young son. By way of apology, she offered Paula a low-carb soup from the refrigerator and a ride to Philadelphia on the corporate jet.
His assistant declined both offers. Disney execs flew to meet Shyamalan a few days later; that dinner ended their relationship.
Jesus, someone needs to make a movie or tv show about this. With Entourage and Californication finished they're a gap to fill for Hollywood assholes on tv.
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
I remember that too - can't remember the movie that the trailer was attached to but there were a few boos and some laughs/snickers. Come to think of it, I never did see that one. The premise didn't really do anything for me.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
He eventually left Disney/Touchstone over creative differences after The Village.
He honestly strikes me as someone very similar to Lucas. Good at putting forward ideas with strong potential but in need of others to help shape them and keep him from having complete control for those ideas to be good films.
M. Night Shyamalan found a credulous Boswell in Michael Bamberger, a Sports Illustrated scribe willing to inflate every imagined slight the director ever faced into comic levels of bathos. His parents wanted him to go to Princeton, not NYU. Poor guy! Disney execs didn’t fall all over themselves praising his script for “The Lady in the Water.” The nerve! This quickie tome elevates petulance — and hagiography — to dizzying heights. Clearly, the scribe, like the helmer he so adoringly profiles, needs a healthy dose of perspective. Or at least a better project to wrap shared indignation around.
Bamberger, who met Shyamalan at a party for Philadelphia power brokers, seems dazzled by him from the start. “Night’s shirt was half open — Tom Jones in his prime,” he gushes.
The scribe quickly pitches a book aiming to show how the writer-director thinks, and Shyamalan assents. To convey this, Bamberger re-creates the proud and censorious voices inside Shyamalan’s head throughout “Lady’s” gestation. Given Shyamalan’s healthy ego and Bamberger’s penchant for florid flattery, the narrative frequently goes over the top, with Bamberger variously invoking Moses, Michael Jordan, Bob Dylan and Walt Disney when describing Shyamalan.
“Not since Mr. Walt Disney himself had any one director been so associated with Disney,” Bamberger asserts while setting the stage for the Mouse House betrayal.
The scribe rhapsodizes about Shyamalan’s farm, driver and cook, as if no one else on Philadelphia’s affluent Main Line ever engaged the latter two. Bamberger, and, we suspect, Shyamalan, want us to have it both ways; we’re meant to simultaneously sympathize with Shyamalan’s fight against the Mouse House and vicariously admire his wealth.
Aside from pesky writer’s block, the first sign of real trouble emerges when since-ousted Disney exec Nina Jacobson fails to receive Shyamalan’s script — a script so closely guarded his assistant wouldn’t even visit the bathroom on the plane ride to L.A. — at her home the exact moment he dictated.
“What could Nina be doing that’s more important than getting Night’s new script?” Bamberger wonders, using italics to directly invoke the director’s thoughts.
A confab at a Philadelphia restaurant turns even more disastrous when Jacobson, Dick Cook and Oren Aviv criticize Shyamalan’s script. Deciding they wanted him to be a cog, he quickly phones Alan Horn and gets the film set up at Warners.
The rest of the book gives a blow-for-blow account of “Lady’s” production, from casting woes to drunken antics by cinematographer Chris Doyle.
Occasionally, Bamberger allows a slightly reproving tone to creep in, as when he recounts Shyamalan’s churlish behavior to Bryce Dallas Howard during pre-production. When the vegan thesp declines a piece of his birthday cake with the explanation she doesn’t eat anything with animal fat in it, Bamberger writes, “Night was annoyed.” Then when she offered him “a gruesome-looking vegan cake” a few days later, co-star Paul Giamatti ate a piece but Shyamalan passed, saying he wouldn’t eat anything that didn’t have animal fat in it.
“He was joking, but with a hint of hostility,” Bamberger observes.
The scribe then proceeds to outline the way Howard’s technique had changed for the worse since she worked with the director on “The Village.” It’s moments like these that Bamberger’s decision to present events from Shyamalan’s “voice” proves especially maddening; the passage is clearly biased but written in standard third person form normally associated with more balanced reportage.
It’s not always clear who is making which judgment. Is Bamberger as dismissive as Shyamalan of actors’ fussy diets? Does he really believe providing food on location illustrates Shyamalan’s generosity? Has he never heard of craft services? And does he really think Disney grievously dissed Shyamalan by daring to criticize his script?
This technique provides a convenient out for both participants. Bamberger’s insistence that Shyamalan made no suggestions to make himself look better doesn’t remove the inherent murkiness.
Beyond problems of tone, the tome is hugely bloated and would probably have been better served as a lengthy magazine piece. But that way we probably wouldn’t get to read, at such great length, how fabulous Shyamalan is.
Also not clear: Who the audience for this highly selective account is. By rushing this into stores for “Lady’s” bigscreen bow, Bamberger and Gotham Books are banking on sympathy for the director, and his point of view. Will that gamble pay off if the movie tanks? Early reviews suggest Disney, and especially ousted exec Jacobson, were right all along.
Unscripted moment
When Nina Jacobson was not at home to receive M. Night Shyamalan’s script, he took it as an ominous sign. The book describes his reaction:
The lesson of Night’s own 34 years was so clear to him: If you’re a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney — if you’re M. Night Shyamalan — and you have faith and a vision and something original to say, money will come. But if you’re chasing money, the audience will see you for what you are. Night knew his ideas were no longer making an impact on Nina. He was losing her, losing the hold he once had on her. He blamed that on the culture of her corporation. Disney, he realized, in the blind final years of the Michael Eisner regime, had changed. It was now in the business of cloning.
And now, a half-year after “The Village” had run its course, Nina was not home at the appointed time to receive Night’s new script.
JJ called Paula back and said, “I couldn’t get her on her cell phone, but I’ll email her on her BlackBerry.”
Paula waited in her car, stewing, wondering how this delay would affect her other appointments.
A few minutes later, JJ called again. “Nina’s on her way. She should be there in 10 to 15 minutes. She’s just coming back from a birthday party with her son.”
Birthday party? Nobody said anything about a birthday party.
Nina arrived at 2:15 with her young son. By way of apology, she offered Paula a low-carb soup from the refrigerator and a ride to Philadelphia on the corporate jet.
His assistant declined both offers. Disney execs flew to meet Shyamalan a few days later; that dinner ended their relationship.
Jesus, someone needs to make a movie or tv show about this. With Entourage and Californication finished they're a gap to fill for Hollywood assholes on tv.
That sounds better than the last several Shyamalan movies.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
I remember that too - can't remember the movie that the trailer was attached to but there were a few boos and some laughs/snickers. Come to think of it, I never did see that one. The premise didn't really do anything for me.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
Signs was an abomination of a film. It's the single worst close encounter movie I've ever seen, and that was the moment I knew Shyamalan was a hack who got lucky with a few films that didn't blow. Seriously, how the fuck do you have the technology to traverse interstellar distances but not have waterproof suits or fucking guns? You cannot trap an alien invader in the goddamn cupboard! My eyes squirt blood every time someone says that movie is anything other than a crime against humanity.
How utterly boring. I have no reason to care for this random guy kicking the shit out of criminals and the reason at the end was too little, too late. The fight scenes were unimpressive given this is what happens on tv shows these days. And Scott Adkins can't act his way out of a paper bag. Have you seen his ninja movie? lol
The Daredevil hallway fight scene is nothing special, it's nice to have in a sprinkles on a donut kinda way but asian cinema has been doing it as a everyday thing for decades. Watch some Johnnie To movies.
The Daredevil hallway fight scene is nothing special, it's nice to have in a sprinkles on a donut kinda way but asian cinema has been doing it as a everyday thing for decades. Watch some Johnnie To movies.
The trailer for the visit actually managed to peak my interest briefly; Telling a found footage film from the perspective of prepubescent children is something I don't think has actually been done before and could have been interesting.
But then M. Night had to stuff his stupid name in big red letters in the middle of the screen, and I was reminded of all the reasons I hate found footage; why are they holding the kids filming themselves doing boring shit like watching grandma clean the stove, why are the grandparents letting themselves be filmed, how the hell do they have a decent wi-fi signal in the middle of nowhere and my favorite:
Why the hell are the kids filming themselves having a skype conversation.
0
Options
HalfmexI mock your value systemYou also appear foolish in the eyes of othersRegistered Userregular
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
I remember that too - can't remember the movie that the trailer was attached to but there were a few boos and some laughs/snickers. Come to think of it, I never did see that one. The premise didn't really do anything for me.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
He eventually left Disney/Touchstone over creative differences after The Village.
He honestly strikes me as someone very similar to Lucas. Good at putting forward ideas with strong potential but in need of others to help shape them and keep him from having complete control for those ideas to be good films.
M. Night Shyamalan found a credulous Boswell in Michael Bamberger, a Sports Illustrated scribe willing to inflate every imagined slight the director ever faced into comic levels of bathos. His parents wanted him to go to Princeton, not NYU. Poor guy! Disney execs didn’t fall all over themselves praising his script for “The Lady in the Water.” The nerve! This quickie tome elevates petulance — and hagiography — to dizzying heights. Clearly, the scribe, like the helmer he so adoringly profiles, needs a healthy dose of perspective. Or at least a better project to wrap shared indignation around.
Bamberger, who met Shyamalan at a party for Philadelphia power brokers, seems dazzled by him from the start. “Night’s shirt was half open — Tom Jones in his prime,” he gushes.
The scribe quickly pitches a book aiming to show how the writer-director thinks, and Shyamalan assents. To convey this, Bamberger re-creates the proud and censorious voices inside Shyamalan’s head throughout “Lady’s” gestation. Given Shyamalan’s healthy ego and Bamberger’s penchant for florid flattery, the narrative frequently goes over the top, with Bamberger variously invoking Moses, Michael Jordan, Bob Dylan and Walt Disney when describing Shyamalan.
“Not since Mr. Walt Disney himself had any one director been so associated with Disney,” Bamberger asserts while setting the stage for the Mouse House betrayal.
The scribe rhapsodizes about Shyamalan’s farm, driver and cook, as if no one else on Philadelphia’s affluent Main Line ever engaged the latter two. Bamberger, and, we suspect, Shyamalan, want us to have it both ways; we’re meant to simultaneously sympathize with Shyamalan’s fight against the Mouse House and vicariously admire his wealth.
Aside from pesky writer’s block, the first sign of real trouble emerges when since-ousted Disney exec Nina Jacobson fails to receive Shyamalan’s script — a script so closely guarded his assistant wouldn’t even visit the bathroom on the plane ride to L.A. — at her home the exact moment he dictated.
“What could Nina be doing that’s more important than getting Night’s new script?” Bamberger wonders, using italics to directly invoke the director’s thoughts.
A confab at a Philadelphia restaurant turns even more disastrous when Jacobson, Dick Cook and Oren Aviv criticize Shyamalan’s script. Deciding they wanted him to be a cog, he quickly phones Alan Horn and gets the film set up at Warners.
The rest of the book gives a blow-for-blow account of “Lady’s” production, from casting woes to drunken antics by cinematographer Chris Doyle.
Occasionally, Bamberger allows a slightly reproving tone to creep in, as when he recounts Shyamalan’s churlish behavior to Bryce Dallas Howard during pre-production. When the vegan thesp declines a piece of his birthday cake with the explanation she doesn’t eat anything with animal fat in it, Bamberger writes, “Night was annoyed.” Then when she offered him “a gruesome-looking vegan cake” a few days later, co-star Paul Giamatti ate a piece but Shyamalan passed, saying he wouldn’t eat anything that didn’t have animal fat in it.
“He was joking, but with a hint of hostility,” Bamberger observes.
The scribe then proceeds to outline the way Howard’s technique had changed for the worse since she worked with the director on “The Village.” It’s moments like these that Bamberger’s decision to present events from Shyamalan’s “voice” proves especially maddening; the passage is clearly biased but written in standard third person form normally associated with more balanced reportage.
It’s not always clear who is making which judgment. Is Bamberger as dismissive as Shyamalan of actors’ fussy diets? Does he really believe providing food on location illustrates Shyamalan’s generosity? Has he never heard of craft services? And does he really think Disney grievously dissed Shyamalan by daring to criticize his script?
This technique provides a convenient out for both participants. Bamberger’s insistence that Shyamalan made no suggestions to make himself look better doesn’t remove the inherent murkiness.
Beyond problems of tone, the tome is hugely bloated and would probably have been better served as a lengthy magazine piece. But that way we probably wouldn’t get to read, at such great length, how fabulous Shyamalan is.
Also not clear: Who the audience for this highly selective account is. By rushing this into stores for “Lady’s” bigscreen bow, Bamberger and Gotham Books are banking on sympathy for the director, and his point of view. Will that gamble pay off if the movie tanks? Early reviews suggest Disney, and especially ousted exec Jacobson, were right all along.
Unscripted moment
When Nina Jacobson was not at home to receive M. Night Shyamalan’s script, he took it as an ominous sign. The book describes his reaction:
The lesson of Night’s own 34 years was so clear to him: If you’re a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney — if you’re M. Night Shyamalan — and you have faith and a vision and something original to say, money will come. But if you’re chasing money, the audience will see you for what you are. Night knew his ideas were no longer making an impact on Nina. He was losing her, losing the hold he once had on her. He blamed that on the culture of her corporation. Disney, he realized, in the blind final years of the Michael Eisner regime, had changed. It was now in the business of cloning.
And now, a half-year after “The Village” had run its course, Nina was not home at the appointed time to receive Night’s new script.
JJ called Paula back and said, “I couldn’t get her on her cell phone, but I’ll email her on her BlackBerry.”
Paula waited in her car, stewing, wondering how this delay would affect her other appointments.
A few minutes later, JJ called again. “Nina’s on her way. She should be there in 10 to 15 minutes. She’s just coming back from a birthday party with her son.”
Birthday party? Nobody said anything about a birthday party.
Nina arrived at 2:15 with her young son. By way of apology, she offered Paula a low-carb soup from the refrigerator and a ride to Philadelphia on the corporate jet.
His assistant declined both offers. Disney execs flew to meet Shyamalan a few days later; that dinner ended their relationship.
Jesus, someone needs to make a movie or tv show about this. With Entourage and Californication finished they're a gap to fill for Hollywood assholes on tv.
I'm not sure who comes off sounding worse in that obvious hit piece, Shyamalan or the writer he apparently scorned at some point. An egotistical film director? In Hollywood? Holy shit, someone get Tom Brokaw on the line, that's a scoop!
Yeah, he's a guy who either got incredibly lucky or had a good bit of talent, whichever you prefer, and especially considering he was hailed as "the next Hitchcock/Spielberg" by the media and filmgoers at large after The Sixth Sense, it's pretty easy to see how his ego could have gotten prematurely inflated. I'm not excusing his behavior, I'm just saying that behaving as though you levitate three feet above the ground at all times due to sheer talent isn't something exclusive to Shyamalan, not by a long shot.
I can get on board with the Lucas comparisons, though. Certainly more than a few parallels there.
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
I remember that too - can't remember the movie that the trailer was attached to but there were a few boos and some laughs/snickers. Come to think of it, I never did see that one. The premise didn't really do anything for me.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
Signs was an abomination of a film. It's the single worst close encounter movie I've ever seen, and that was the moment I knew Shyamalan was a hack who got lucky with a few films that didn't blow. Seriously, how the fuck do you have the technology to traverse interstellar distances but not have waterproof suits or fucking guns? You cannot trap an alien invader in the goddamn cupboard! My eyes squirt blood every time someone says that movie is anything other than a crime against humanity.
So, how many copies can I put you down for? Two? Three, in case the first two get scratched?
I dunno, I liked it. The whole "tweest" part was silly but it didn't torpedo my enjoyment of the whole film. But then I also really enjoyed The Village the one time I saw it, so I'm pretty well in the minority I understand.
But back on topic, I just think that trailer for The Visit does a good job of invoking some unsettling sensations without going into the supernatural (at least not obviously so), which is rare for horror these days.
Posts
Good thing 37 is anywhere between 30 and 45.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Well yes, but it's strange to have it collapsed into an actual figure, rather than a variable.
I like that it fell almost precisely in the center of your range estimate.
Hah, yeah, that wasn't even intentional.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as such a refreshing direction for a horror film, especially if it doesn't stray too far into the whole supernatural schtick. It plays on a fairly relatable fear (or at least one I can appreciate) of the borderline-creepy/mentally unstable old folks just hopping over the line and going full-blown creepy. Hopefully the entire film's as good as the trailer. Fingers crossed.
It's written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
Yeah, there's that. His track record's not great, but I still like the premise of the film. As long as the grandparents don't turn out to be a future/alternate dimension version of those kids or something similarly ridiculous, it could still be decent.
That looks nightmarishly awful.
But that's where the really awful shit is!
So the trailer starts out with children assassins (okay, maybe they're Spy Kids... that takes a very specific approach to not be morally horrifying, this movie CLEARLY doesn't have it), but apparently that's the normal/okay part? The weird/plot part is going to high school?
"So this brainwashed war orphan is going to have to start caring about boys and makeup and stuff... before her most recent target comes to get her."
Presumably it ends in a funny school shoot out/knife fight? I'm surprised even DirecTV was okay with allowing it to exist.
That's literally all anyone needs to know to avoid that thing at all costs.
It really rides that line between someone trying to be clever and trying to slip a porn title through.
I remember when the trailers for Devil started showing up, so many people on here said the theaters cracked up laughing when his name appeared.
Shyamalan's early films were solid enough, so the guy's got some talent. No idea why it hasn't manifested itself in his last half-dozen films but the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were good enough that I'm willing to at least give this one the benefit of the doubt. The liklihood of it being another Happening or Lady in the Water is not insignificant, but the premise for this is fresh enough that I'm willing to take a shot on it.
He eventually left Disney/Touchstone over creative differences after The Village.
He honestly strikes me as someone very similar to Lucas. Good at putting forward ideas with strong potential but in need of others to help shape them and keep him from having complete control for those ideas to be good films.
He has no credibility. Devil did alright since they buried his name in it. The last time a studio gave him a big budget we got this
That trailer was awful. It'd slide if it was a newcomer but every frame was amateurish. In his prime his trailers were excellent and showed why they deserved to be on the big screen - why isn't this direct to dvd?
http://variety.com/2006/more/reviews/the-man-who-heard-voices-or-how-m-night-shyamalan-risked-his-career-on-a-fairy-tale-1200514612/
Bamberger, who met Shyamalan at a party for Philadelphia power brokers, seems dazzled by him from the start. “Night’s shirt was half open — Tom Jones in his prime,” he gushes.
The scribe quickly pitches a book aiming to show how the writer-director thinks, and Shyamalan assents. To convey this, Bamberger re-creates the proud and censorious voices inside Shyamalan’s head throughout “Lady’s” gestation. Given Shyamalan’s healthy ego and Bamberger’s penchant for florid flattery, the narrative frequently goes over the top, with Bamberger variously invoking Moses, Michael Jordan, Bob Dylan and Walt Disney when describing Shyamalan.
“Not since Mr. Walt Disney himself had any one director been so associated with Disney,” Bamberger asserts while setting the stage for the Mouse House betrayal.
The scribe rhapsodizes about Shyamalan’s farm, driver and cook, as if no one else on Philadelphia’s affluent Main Line ever engaged the latter two. Bamberger, and, we suspect, Shyamalan, want us to have it both ways; we’re meant to simultaneously sympathize with Shyamalan’s fight against the Mouse House and vicariously admire his wealth.
Aside from pesky writer’s block, the first sign of real trouble emerges when since-ousted Disney exec Nina Jacobson fails to receive Shyamalan’s script — a script so closely guarded his assistant wouldn’t even visit the bathroom on the plane ride to L.A. — at her home the exact moment he dictated.
“What could Nina be doing that’s more important than getting Night’s new script?” Bamberger wonders, using italics to directly invoke the director’s thoughts.
A confab at a Philadelphia restaurant turns even more disastrous when Jacobson, Dick Cook and Oren Aviv criticize Shyamalan’s script. Deciding they wanted him to be a cog, he quickly phones Alan Horn and gets the film set up at Warners.
The rest of the book gives a blow-for-blow account of “Lady’s” production, from casting woes to drunken antics by cinematographer Chris Doyle.
Occasionally, Bamberger allows a slightly reproving tone to creep in, as when he recounts Shyamalan’s churlish behavior to Bryce Dallas Howard during pre-production. When the vegan thesp declines a piece of his birthday cake with the explanation she doesn’t eat anything with animal fat in it, Bamberger writes, “Night was annoyed.” Then when she offered him “a gruesome-looking vegan cake” a few days later, co-star Paul Giamatti ate a piece but Shyamalan passed, saying he wouldn’t eat anything that didn’t have animal fat in it.
“He was joking, but with a hint of hostility,” Bamberger observes.
The scribe then proceeds to outline the way Howard’s technique had changed for the worse since she worked with the director on “The Village.” It’s moments like these that Bamberger’s decision to present events from Shyamalan’s “voice” proves especially maddening; the passage is clearly biased but written in standard third person form normally associated with more balanced reportage.
It’s not always clear who is making which judgment. Is Bamberger as dismissive as Shyamalan of actors’ fussy diets? Does he really believe providing food on location illustrates Shyamalan’s generosity? Has he never heard of craft services? And does he really think Disney grievously dissed Shyamalan by daring to criticize his script?
This technique provides a convenient out for both participants. Bamberger’s insistence that Shyamalan made no suggestions to make himself look better doesn’t remove the inherent murkiness.
Beyond problems of tone, the tome is hugely bloated and would probably have been better served as a lengthy magazine piece. But that way we probably wouldn’t get to read, at such great length, how fabulous Shyamalan is.
Also not clear: Who the audience for this highly selective account is. By rushing this into stores for “Lady’s” bigscreen bow, Bamberger and Gotham Books are banking on sympathy for the director, and his point of view. Will that gamble pay off if the movie tanks? Early reviews suggest Disney, and especially ousted exec Jacobson, were right all along.
Unscripted moment
When Nina Jacobson was not at home to receive M. Night Shyamalan’s script, he took it as an ominous sign. The book describes his reaction:
The lesson of Night’s own 34 years was so clear to him: If you’re a Bob Dylan, a Michael Jordan, a Walt Disney — if you’re M. Night Shyamalan — and you have faith and a vision and something original to say, money will come. But if you’re chasing money, the audience will see you for what you are. Night knew his ideas were no longer making an impact on Nina. He was losing her, losing the hold he once had on her. He blamed that on the culture of her corporation. Disney, he realized, in the blind final years of the Michael Eisner regime, had changed. It was now in the business of cloning.
And now, a half-year after “The Village” had run its course, Nina was not home at the appointed time to receive Night’s new script.
JJ called Paula back and said, “I couldn’t get her on her cell phone, but I’ll email her on her BlackBerry.”
Paula waited in her car, stewing, wondering how this delay would affect her other appointments.
A few minutes later, JJ called again. “Nina’s on her way. She should be there in 10 to 15 minutes. She’s just coming back from a birthday party with her son.”
Birthday party? Nobody said anything about a birthday party.
Nina arrived at 2:15 with her young son. By way of apology, she offered Paula a low-carb soup from the refrigerator and a ride to Philadelphia on the corporate jet.
His assistant declined both offers. Disney execs flew to meet Shyamalan a few days later; that dinner ended their relationship.
Jesus, someone needs to make a movie or tv show about this. With Entourage and Californication finished they're a gap to fill for Hollywood assholes on tv.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
That sounds better than the last several Shyamalan movies.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
How utterly boring. I have no reason to care for this random guy kicking the shit out of criminals and the reason at the end was too little, too late. The fight scenes were unimpressive given this is what happens on tv shows these days. And Scott Adkins can't act his way out of a paper bag. Have you seen his ninja movie? lol
Also Ninja II is amazing, take that back.
It's new for American tv shows.
But then M. Night had to stuff his stupid name in big red letters in the middle of the screen, and I was reminded of all the reasons I hate found footage; why are they holding the kids filming themselves doing boring shit like watching grandma clean the stove, why are the grandparents letting themselves be filmed, how the hell do they have a decent wi-fi signal in the middle of nowhere and my favorite:
Why the hell are the kids filming themselves having a skype conversation.
I'm not sure who comes off sounding worse in that obvious hit piece, Shyamalan or the writer he apparently scorned at some point. An egotistical film director? In Hollywood? Holy shit, someone get Tom Brokaw on the line, that's a scoop!
Yeah, he's a guy who either got incredibly lucky or had a good bit of talent, whichever you prefer, and especially considering he was hailed as "the next Hitchcock/Spielberg" by the media and filmgoers at large after The Sixth Sense, it's pretty easy to see how his ego could have gotten prematurely inflated. I'm not excusing his behavior, I'm just saying that behaving as though you levitate three feet above the ground at all times due to sheer talent isn't something exclusive to Shyamalan, not by a long shot.
I can get on board with the Lucas comparisons, though. Certainly more than a few parallels there.
So, how many copies can I put you down for? Two? Three, in case the first two get scratched?
I dunno, I liked it. The whole "tweest" part was silly but it didn't torpedo my enjoyment of the whole film. But then I also really enjoyed The Village the one time I saw it, so I'm pretty well in the minority I understand.
But back on topic, I just think that trailer for The Visit does a good job of invoking some unsettling sensations without going into the supernatural (at least not obviously so), which is rare for horror these days.
Looks good to me! I also doubt (network) TV would do the knife bit.