posted
Way back in 2000 Bruce Willis revealed during an online chat that Unbreakable was intended to be the first installment of a trilogy. M. Night instantly spun that into he'd like to do more films set in that world. AICN and other rumor sites for a couple of years posted info from "people who KNEW two more scripts were being worked on!" but nothing ever panned out. Disney was hoping Unbreakable would be a hit the level of The Sixth Sense. It wasn't quite that, so nothing more ever came of it.
I recall M. Night gave a rather bemused, mildly sardonic reaction to questions about sequels during a Q&A session in 2003. His response was words to the effect of: "You wanted to see more movies? Then how come hardly any of you saw the first one? Sorry guys, I just didn't feel the love."
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. On a scale of favorite to least favorite, it would go:
1. Unbreakable 2. Signs 3. Sixth Sense 4. Lady in the Water 6. The Village
but still, I thought the village was good. Sure it had some flaws, but was still an enjoyable movie. Same goes for Lady in the Water.
I think the trouble is that they are always advertised as mainstream horror movies, and they're not. Lady in the Water was so different than the trailers led us to believe, that I think people were pissed when it was more fantasy and less horror.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fantasy elements in "Lady in the Water" were so obvious to me that I already knew I wouldn't be interested in watching. Part of the enjoyment of his movies is not knowing, but the trailer didn't give off the impression of mystery. It was the first movie of his that I skipped. I really liked The Village, though Unbreakable was interesting, but forgetable.
The trailer to this one reminds me of a twisted Rapture movie. Yes, people are taken back to heaven - after dying. Another impression I got was I Am Legend during rather than after the plague's final outcome. This trailer makes me want to see the movie a lot more than Lady in the Water, but I just didn't get a sense of story. That bothers me.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: This trailer makes me want to see the movie a lot more than Lady in the Water, but I just didn't get a sense of story. That bothers me.
Isn't that what teaser trailers are all about? Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The fantasy elements in "Lady in the Water" were so obvious to me that I already knew I wouldn't be interested in watching.
Ghosts, super-heroes, aliens, and fake Amish people are okay though? Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely want to see this one. I love M. Night's work. Unbreakable was a great movie, I loved it. I hadn't heard that about it being intended as a triology, but it works fine on its own, imo. The only movie of his I didn't much like was The lady in the Water.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must have missed something in Unbreakable, because to me it didn't have as much impact as it apparently had with everyone else.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I must have missed something in Unbreakable, because to me it didn't have as much impact as it apparently had with everyone else.
It didn't have much of an impact with the general movie-going public period. It's not like The Sixth Sense, which inspired a catch phrase and became one of those movies many people have at least caught once.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I must have missed something in Unbreakable, because to me it didn't have as much impact as it apparently had with everyone else.
It was the proto-Heroes. A normal guy finds out he has superpowers.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I must have missed something in Unbreakable, because to me it didn't have as much impact as it apparently had with everyone else.
It was the proto-Heroes. A normal guy finds out he has superpowers.
THis is what really got me about Unbreakable. You have Bruce Willis, this guy that was a great athlete when he was younger. Deep down, he suspected he might have some kind of gift or was special. He met his wife, who didn't like violent sports, and the first chance he had he gave up his athletics to please her. And over time, that ate at him because it was part of him, his strength and power and his need to make a difference. Which is why he became a security gaurd. But that wasn't enough. He needed to be able to help people and make a difference. Because he wasn't, it ate at him and destroyed his marriage.
When the train thing happens, it reawakens this idea he has that he has some kind of special thing. And his son sees it. But he still tries to deny it. But he can't. He can't push it back. And with his son and Mr Glass pushing him, he discovers his power and uses it to help people. Which makes him feel good again, makes him a man again, someone who can protect his wife and be there for her.
The best part of that movie was when Bruce points out the newspaper article about his rescue of that family to his son. And his son knows. And he knows. And they bond. But they can't say anything, just like a super hero, to protect his identity. Even to his wife.
IMO, it's a great movie. But I think M Knight made it a bit too subtle, and most people don't "get" it. Because many people want everything spelled out for them in a linear sensical way.
I think it's a fabulous movie, with the score and lighting and filming, and I can watch that movie over and over and over again.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: But I think M Knight made it a bit too subtle, and most people don't "get" it. Because many people want everything spelled out for them in a linear, sensical way.
I'm going to have to disagree with this, at least based on the people I personally know who didn't like it. None of them disliked it because they didn't "get" it, they disliked it because they really wanted Mister Glass to turn out to be the "mentor" figure he at first seemed to be, not the insane super-villain behind it all.
They got it fine, but they were disappointed with where the story lead.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think M. Night has shown a habit of making stories go wherever he wants them to go. No matter what the common tropes. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with stihl1, if the story had led anywhere else, then there would be no conflict, therefore no story.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: I agree with stihl1, if the story had led anywhere else, then there would be no conflict, therefore no story.
There other conflicts..with his wife, with his son, with the other "villains" he met growing into his role...with his own initial refusal to believe Mr. Glass and reluctance to accept his destiny.
There are plenty of super-hero origins where the mentor figure doesn't turn out to be rotten, so I think my friends can be excused wishing it had gone in that direction instead.
Personally, I liked it, but I don't think it was the only way he could have gone.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Saw the trailer... God, I hate it when he does that. What's the point of a trailer if it says nothing about the movie.
Oh! It has Mark Walhberg in it! Guess it won't suck then!
Descriptions only mention a "coming apocalypse" causes them to evacuate New York. Maybe some big monster's going to trash the city and...
Oh...
Never mind.
Given that the movie seems to be about unexplained suicides, I think the trailer did a pretty good job of giving you a brief look at what it's about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that the movie seems to be about unexplained suicides, I think the trailer did a pretty good job of giving you a brief look at what it's about.
Thing is that I didn't know that. I shouldn't have to hunt for the plot to a movie. If I saw this for the first time in a theater, without any prior knowledge of the movie, I wouldn't know what to think of it.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that the movie seems to be about unexplained suicides, I think the trailer did a pretty good job of giving you a brief look at what it's about.
Thing is that I didn't know that. I shouldn't have to hunt for the plot to a movie. If I saw this for the first time in a theater, without any prior knowledge of the movie, I wouldn't know what to think of it.
I didn't read that anywhere else, I just assumed that was the plot from the trailer. All I knew was that the movie was about a disaster of some sort and it centered on people trying to escape it. I assumed that the suicides were the plot.
Near as I can tell trailers aren't supposed to spell out the plot, they're just there to provoke interest. Any idea what the plot is of the Star Trek movie from the teaser? of Prince Caspian? of Iron Man? I haven't a clue, but I'm stoked!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, those examples you gave are all from previously existing stories. Even if you don't know the exact plot of Star Trek or Iron Man, you know the basics of what it is.
Anyway, I don't think the problem with The Happening trailer has to do with how much it shows, but of how it shows it... I don't know. I mean, its didn't seem cohesive. It just looked like random scenes thrown together. It didn't have a hook. Even if it doesn't show anything of the plot, it still needs a hook to grab me.
Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I just saw Lady in the Water for the first time today and I liked it. It wasn't my favorite of his films, but I still liked it. I think the thing about his movies is that they get an automatic bump for originality. They are wholly unlike anything else I've seen on the big screen, and they get a lot of credit for that, but they also happen to be pretty decent to utterly awesome movies.
I'm glad he's gotten away from the "twist" thing, and apparently that's why he abandoned plans to make a movie out of Life of Pi. I'm curious to see what his adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender is going to look like.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like many of Shyamalan's films. "Unbreakable" was probably my favorite, and given that it did over $250 million in worldwide box-office (and more than made up its production budget in domestic alone) if it didn't perform well enough to warrant a sequel in the suits' eyes, that's a problem with their expectations, not the film itself or its performance.
That said, it seems like Shyamalan, rather like Spike Lee, is starting to suffer from an ego problem related to his early success. "Lady in the Water" may not have been the unmitigated disaster some would lead you to believe, but it was unquestionably a movie that suffered from its creator's hubris.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
