M. Night Shyamalan A Little Crying Suck?

Ok, now before I get into it here… let me say a couple of things.

1) I LOVED Sixth Sense

2) I LOVED Signs

3) I think M. Night Shyamalan is very gifted.

There… we clear on that? Good.

It’s no big secret that prior to the production of “Lady in the Water” that M. Night Shyamalan and Disney had a parting of the ways. Fair enough. That happens all the time in business relationships. No big deal. But now according to the guys over at Filmrot, there is a book coming out about the split being told from Shyamalan’s point of view called “How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale”.

The long and the short of it is this. Shyamalan describes how everything fell apart with Disney. It all basically happened over a dinner meeting with Disney production President Nina Jacobson. In the dinner meeting, Jacobson describes her concerns with Shyamalan’s script for Lady in the Water:

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.”

Ok, now most internet pundits (whom I respect very very much) are jumping on this story and yelling “YEAH M. NIGHT!!! You stick it to the man!!!” Because we all know how evil and dumb the studios are right? Right? RIGHT?

The problem is that “the studios are dumb” is an inaccurate fall back position we often take when we don’t actually want to THINK about the issue at hand. Studios are actually filled with brilliant people, who from time to time do very very very stupid things (if you’ve read The Movie Blog for any length of time you know I slam the studios almost as much as anyone sometimes).

But you know what I see when I read Shyamalan’s account of that infamous dinner meeting? I see a spoiled and arrogant filimmaker who thinks he can do no wrong who refused to listen to criticism from anyone. I see a filmmaker whose last film (The Village) totally sucked ass, and yet has his nose so far up his own ass he thinks that if people don’t like his work, the problem must be theirs.

And you know what? I think Jacobsen was right! Putting himself in that role DOES seem totally arrogant and self promoting. Having a film critic attacked DOES seem like he’s got the maturity of a 5 year old and he’s lashing out at someone who dissed one of his films. So yeah.. I think it was totally fair of Jacobson to raise those issues.

So what does Shyamalan do??? Does he say “Thanks for the feedback. Let me think about what you said”? Nope. He throws a hissy fit that comes across as “HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE THE GREAT AND POWERFUL SHYAMALAN!!!! DON’T YOU KNOW WHO I THINK I AM!?!?!” He walks out, finds another studio that will kiss his ass, and then has a book written to vilify those who would dare question him. What a bitch.

So yeah… while everyone else is cheering this guy for what he did… all I can see is a childish little suck who didn’t like being told he wasn’t perfect… took his ball and went home… then cried about how he wasn’t worshiped at Disney for the god he thinks he is in a book where he calls a lot of people a lot of names. That’s what I see.

The studios can be idiots sometimes… yes. They can be driven by greed many times… yes. They can lack vision sometimes… yes. All very very true. But NONE of that changes this issue. To me, M. Night Shyamalan acted like a little whinny suck at that dinner… and now is acting like a little whinny bitch with a book. Slam me all you want… but that’s how I see it.

Comment with Facebook
User Review
0 (0 votes)

46 thoughts on “M. Night Shyamalan A Little Crying Suck?

  1. I for one am a HUFE MNS fan. The Village is one of my favorites…I think that movie is aimed at the more intellectual crowd…the types who don’t just want blood and gore. He is doing a movie from each genre…and his spins on them are awesome! He avoids all the CGI and ridiculous special effects to get you hooked…and nowadays that is HARD TO DO! Lady In The Water was BRILLIANT!!!!!! I still get chills up my spine when I see the scrunt for the first time. Bryce is a beautiful actress, and MNS did a superb job portaying his character. Saying he is a “crying suck” was harsh. He brought Disney HOW much revenue and they suddenly doubt a script because they don’t “get it” was stupid on Disney’s part…this is the company that sneaks in pornograpy into it’s animated films btw. MNS has faith in his work…and I can see why!!!

  2. >So yeah… while everyone else is cheering this guy for what he did… all I can see is a childish little suck who didn’t like being told he wasn’t perfect… took his ball and went home… then cried about how he wasn’t worshiped at Disney for the god he thinks he is in a book where he calls a lot of people a lot of names. That’s what I see.>So yeah… while everyone else is cheering this guy for what he did… all I can see is a childish little suck who didn’t like being told he wasn’t perfect… took his ball and went home… then cried about how he wasn’t worshiped at Disney for the god he thinks he is in a book where he calls a lot of people a lot of names. That’s what I see.< I couldn't disagree more. Show me a director, actor or another person working in Hollywood who isn't somewhat egotistical and I might concede to your point. Studios, let us be clear, ARE all about money. Yes money is important for them to stay in business but their tunnel vision often costs them when it comes to well told, well made films. All they see is the IMMEDIATE bottom line. For Christ's sakes they don't even count overseas box office receipts and dvd rentals and sales anymore! It's all about the domestic opening weekend! Shyamalan had every right to be offended by these crass people. He makes good films (my opinion, I know) far above most of the crap that oozes out of Hollywood. Those fools should be glad to have a quality filmaker in their midst instead of pissing all over him.

  3. The way I see it, movies are like everything else: it’s a matter of personal opinion and depends on what you like. Not everyone likes horror films and those who do have certain expectations.

    Horror fans rave about George Romero’s film, “Night of the Living Dead”, which I absolutely abhorred. Some fans, loved Rob Zombie’s homage to Romero and I, on the other hand, thought it gratuitous, poorly written, ill thought out and silly.

    So where does Mr. Shymalan fit in all this? His movies are very well crafted. Although I didn’t care all that much for The Village, I thought the idea was awfully good. I wonder how some posting here would have felt had Alfred Hitchcock has made The Village? I bet there’d be those clamoring for an Oscar nod.

    All film makers are high in the ego area. Else they’d not be where they are.

    Anyway, let the critics have their say. MNS’s movies are, overall, a whole lot better than drivel such as You, Me & Dupree; The In-Laws; and anything with Will Farrell in it!

  4. Has anyone actually read the book yet? Has anyone actually seen Lady In The Water yet? Isn’t it a little early to throw judgement on MKS for what he says in his book which isn’t out yet, or for how he may or may not play a character in a movie which also is not out yet.

  5. Good points all around, but I really don’t know why so many people didn’t like The Village. It’s my favorite of his movies by far. I have only heard people say they didn’t like The Village, but I have never seen a coherant reason why? The only reason I can think that people didn’t like it was because they were expecting something different going in, but that’s poor marketing not poor filmmaking. The Village really hit home to me. I feel like I grew up in a religious culture very much like the village, a culture that tries to hide the real world from you.

  6. bullet in the head makes a pretty good point about people feeling the need to more or less pity M. Night Shyamalan. The man is blacklisted by so many people simple because they cant understand his movies. But that is no reason to go on feeling sorry for who i think is one of the more talented directors today. I’m sure he cares what we think anyway. Was Shyamalan’s bad mouthing appropriate? Probably not, but it goes to show that Shyamalan has balls to call out Hollywood’s “All about the Benjamin’s” mentality. I’m glad he said what he did, good for him. As for those who find his comments snide, pretentious, and teeming with arrogance, too bad. I would be an arrogant jerk too if my name made Hollywood execs bow at my feet.

  7. John:
    I more or less agree with on this. The one thing I disagree with is the number of times you used the word “suck” as a noun. It just troubles me.

  8. …. Is this your site antonio? http://www.capalert.com/capreports/

    I’m not a fan of Disney, and Uncle Walt was not far off being a Nazi, but come on. And so what if a corporation uses a subsidiary to produce films they don’t deem suitable for the Disney core audience did you want them to slap the Disney castle on Miramax films??? They did the right thing separating those products from their family brand.

    The fact is Shyamalan, got one of the best deals of any new director in recent history, considering his tiny output. Love his work or hate it, you can’t deny the amount of freedom he got from a studio like Disney was amazing. With his name emblazed above films as though he had been a top flight director for several decades. Disney promoted him well above the call of duty. There are equally or IMO more talented directors out there that will never see that kind of support. If you want to make purely art and do what the hell you like, then fund your projects yourself. When you are spending millions of dollars of other peoples money then they have a right to voice concerns about the direction you are taking, like it or not.

    I can’t believe people are feeling sorry for this guy, WE all have to put up with decisions we don’t like at work unless we are self employed, that‚Äôs life. Somebody at work did not like the direction you are taking with your film so you left and changed jobs good for you. I can respect that, but to cry over spilt milk when you have a brand new deal and are getting to do what you want that‚Äôs lame.

  9. Dear Mr Campea my point was about bitching… its ok for you to do it but not Mr Shyamalan? The bottom line is unlike Canada which is on its way to becoming a police state, We in America still have the freedom of speech… if I was Mr Shyamalan I would dedicate my life on dissing the morally corruppt, occult, sinisterly evil entity known as Disney (For instance, it was Disney that brought us cannibalism and told us that it was a “triumph of the human spirit” (a direct quote from Disney‚Äôs Touchtone Producer Robert Watts concerning Disney‚Äôs movie “Alive” featuring survivors of an airplane crash who turned to cannibalism). Under the disguise of entertainment & showing us how “triumphant” the human spirit was, they subtly promoted cannibalism. Mickey Mouse plays a leading role in “The Sorcerer‚Äôs Apprentice.” Parents would be surprised what is slipped into cartoons. In Disney‚Äôs “The Little Mermaid” the castles are male sexual organs. In one cartoon Mighty Mouse is shown clearly snorting cocaine. Walt Disney Studios Chairman Joe Roth is in charge of Walt Disney as well as subsidiaries Touchtone, Miramax, and Hollywood Pictures, which were all created to camouflage the Disney production of adult films. Disney operates in a clandestine manner regarding the promotion, distribution and rating of the films produced by their subsidiaries. Now I suspect within the next few weeks that your rant about Mr Shyamalan will continue to grow, you then will start talking about the movie and saying how bad the movie is gonna be. But thats ok cause if the movie is any good you will then start proclaiming how it was a smart move for Mr Shyamalan to leave Disney cause he would not of been able to get away with this or that scene…a no lose situation for you. In closing I would just like to remind everyone about your attack on Luis Guzman when you thought that footage online from the making of the movie Waiting was real. There is another example how you attack someone without any real justification. Did read the entire Shyamalan book Mr Campea? If the book is not avalible yet would you read it when it is, so you know the whole story.

  10. John: The Filmrot article says this:

    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.”

    With the way scripts are written and movies produced these days, you might consider that MNS was trying to expose himself and Disney for their mistakes to encourage others. We read story after story about multiple rewrites which often lead to horrible films so a book like this could be helpful in that vein.

    Until we read the book, though, we won’t know. You might very well be right, but you left out some critical details in your evaluation.

  11. John, I think you’re being a bit cynical with Night’s stance on this, I mean really, you seem to have a biased point of view despite the fact that every bit of your info is heresay.

    You say you’re a fan but yet your headline reads: “…Night….a Little Crying Suck…”?

    Talk about stealth journalism.

  12. Hey there David,

    I agree with everything you said. My point was that a private argument with a Disney exec isn’t what pisses me off. It doesn’t matter who was right and who was wrong in that debate.

    What pisses me off… is that the guy then went on to have a BOOK writen about to make himself out to look like some kind of hero, and villifying the people who disagreed with him. THAT’S the part that makes him an ass to me.



  13. M. Night Shyamalan is a good, creative director. Some of this movies are really good, some not so, but all in all he proved that he is somehow different from the others with his visual style of storytelling.

    For me personally its hard to jump into conclusions if Disney executive was right or wrong, or M. Night Shyamalan was right or wrong. Maybe she really said something stubid and maybe she did not get the idea together with her boss just because they are plain stupid. I dont know. Or maybe Shyamalan has his nose deep in his ass. We dont know that. We were not listening to their conversation and we will never know. (one thing for sure the Book by M. Night Shyamalan is overreaction!).

    Why i’m saying that: I will not judge the film maker by his behaviour on the hypothetical dinner, with hypothetical cause for the break-up with studio, etc. Film maker has to be judged by his films, ability to tell the story, make the point, entertain, make us cry or laugh, make us think, period.

  14. Why is it that some of the best filmakers are such asses…With the exeption of Wes Craven and Quentin Tarrintino. There pretty cool.

  15. John, thanks for the compliment up above. I’ve had a lot of these thoughts before about M. Night, and I once counted myself as a big fan of his, before The Sixth Sense even, way back before he became “A film by M. Night Etc.”

    But somewhere along the line the dude started believing his own press and feeding into his own ego, and I think his movies have gone downhill since.

    To Richard above: you’re exactly right. Hollywood cares about the bottom line – and you better believe that M. Night does, too. Yes, he has a good visual style. Yes, he’s a creative, smart guy. But he is not and never has been in showbiz just for the art. From the time of the Sixth Sense, he’s been well-quoted as saying that he wants to be Spielberg – who isn’t exactly Mr. Smallish Independent Film, right?

    Consider this: who can tell me the names of the people who have written bitter tell-all books about Hollywood? And can you name their most recent successful movie?

  16. I loved Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.
    Signs and the Village were watchable but nowhere near as original. I have no real interest in Lady In The water, despite the trailers. I just see the same kind of film all over again. Everyone expects twists from him now so it’s generally a distraction as you’re going to the theatre constantly trying to guess how the movie is going to end. He needs to head in another direction.

    Wasn’t MNS going to make Life of Pi?
    It would have been worth seeing his interpretation of that.

  17. Hey Antonio,

    Yeah… that’s a PERFECT example. A Movie website offering negative public commentary about a public move a studio has made… is the EXACT same thing as a personal difference between 2 professionals at a business meeting and have a professional difference, one leaves and later writes about public book about their private conversation and makes PERSONAL attacks on people.

    Yup… you really nailed it. That’s a PERFECT example because the two situations are EXACTLY the same. Man… how did I miss that earlier?


  19. Hey Richard,

    I actually agree with you. To me, the issue is NOT who was right and who was wrong. That’s a separate issue, and really, no one will ever know the answer to that.

    What I had a problem was the whole publishing a book about it, making yourself out to look like a hero and vilifying everyone else who dared stand opposed to you.

    Yes, its been done before by many other… but that doesn’t make it any less lame to me. This move by M. Night was LAME. Just my opinion.



  20. Oh, this makes my day.
    Does this make my day!

    Everyone paid so much attention to that overrated piece of dirt called ‘Sixth Sense’, the better film along the same themes, ‘Stir Of Echoes’ hardly blipped on the radar. When the twist in “Sense’ came about, I shrugged my shoulders. So what? I didn’t hate the film, but I could not understand the hype around it. It baffled me.

    “Unbreakable” had an interesting premise, but failed to hold my interest. I didn’t know why until a few years later when I read a criticism of the film’s story structure, in scr(i)pt magazine, Nov/Dec 2002 issue. To sum it up, the twist ending answered questions which the audience never asked, since Elijah wasn’t the protagonist, and that there was more ‘tell’ than ‘show’, and Elijah causing the train wreck never occurs to the audience because the inciciting incident is dropped from the story until the last minute. Several plot threads, such as Dunn’s falling apart marriage and whether or not that he is ‘unbreakable’ or if it’s all in his head, are not answered.

    I agreed with this assessment: the ambiguity of the story hurt the film, and made it uneven.

    Now…I liked Signs quite a bit, more than his other films, although a small story problem crept up there too: if aliens fear water, why kill/attack people who have water in thier bodies,let alone visit a planet which has a lot of it?

    The Viliage was dumb as all out, a premise which I thought worked better as a comedy.
    Case in point: a mention was made on that planes cannot fly low over the park. Fair enough. Have you ever been outside and see a plane way, way up in the sky? Not all the time. But you can see the vapor trail move along the sky…
    (second) Would it be easier to join the Amish?

    In any case, back to the good report of the day.
    Shyamalan should just zip up, and work with the studio he’s with now. The Mouse House was good to him and, like them, love them or hate them, up until Villiage, he delivered the goods. They turn one thing down after THAT track record?

    So what? Any other studio would see that rift, bribe him on over and set up shop there.
    New flash for Shyamalan: this happens all the time! A studio shoots you down, another wants your shit. So you had that clunker Village. Nobody forgot about Signs or Sixth Sense. No need to trash talk Disney. They might have passed on this, but would they have passed on the next?

    Well, that coffin’s nailed up now, that’s for sure!

  21. Hi John,

    I just don’t get why you’re so out of sorts with this book of M. Night’s. It’s been done many times before, ever hear of “You’ll never eat lunch in this town again?” Now if you want to read some slams, go pick that up.

    But more importantly, I read your post on what M.Night says, and who is to say if he is wrong or right? Maybe that exec DID lose her creative vision, maybe she really DOES just care about making money. Seems to me that most of Hollywood cares only about the bottom line, whereas a guy like M.Night cares about making great films.

    Granted it may not be in the best taste to put it in a book. But does that really qualify him as a “whiny little crying suck”?

    Also, I liked The Village. But that’s neither here nor there.

  22. You really like taking that ball and running with it, don’t you? I mean, about half of what you said is conjecture posing as fact. At least the makers of Star Magazine and The Enquirer are aware that they’re spreading falsehoods. What’s your excuse?

  23. M. Night Shyamalan is my favourite living director. I do not like 6th sense, but Unbreakable and Signs are two of the best movies i have ever seen. His movies have amazing performances, and The Village does have great acting in it, which makes it far more enjoyable than a lot of movies that come out.

    There is definetly an argument to be made that he has high thoughts about himself. His credits always include “An M. Night Shyamalan film”, then “Directed by M. Night Shyamalan” and when it ends it goes “A film by M. Night Shyamalan”. But I do not mind it. I think it is great that he is proud enough to do it, and that his movies are so clearly defined as movies by him.

    And movies are getting made without studios, and I do not get why all of a sudden people are defending Disney. Did you all not say Disney were morons for not giving Pixar whatever they wanted? And now because it is MNS, they are justified?

    I have a hard time imagining him leaving because of that ‘criticism’. It is not critisizing when you say “This is selv-serving” or “I dont get this”. That is not something he would be able to reflect upon and maybe try and explain. Who cares what part he plays? Are you really so jealous that you will be mad at him because he plays a specific part? I’d think he would try and explain the movie to the studio, but if all they were concerned about was “Why are you attacking a film critic? They might see that as offensive and give you bad reviews!” I totally get why he would get the hell out of there.

  24. I’m gonna agree with John here, too. I’ve liked all of his movies, even The Village, and think he’s damn good at what he does but this is out of line. He should take like a man, shut the hell up and get on with getting on. This is only gonna make him enemies in the long run. Some cynical film critics might read the book and think, “Right on! Fuck that studio! Good on ya!” Then they put the book down and move on to the next story. The studio execs won’t forget so soon. It’s unprofessional. If he can’t take criticism then he shouldn’t be making multi-million dollar movies.

  25. One OK movie, that mainly relied on the performance of a then very impressive child star is all I see, in my opinion everything else he has done is drivel.

    Why he gets lifted above the likes of Del Torror and Darren Aronofsky is beyond me.

    At the end of the day if other people want to see him as a genius then that’s their prerogative as film is subjective. For me though the guy is a hack who got lucky and has never lived up to the hype at all.

    I personally think THE MAN has given this guy more than his share of credit, help and undeserved budgets, so for once I agree with John; the guy is an ungrateful little crying suck!

  26. MNS’s big mistake is releasing this now. Save it for your memoirs when you are retired. Why burn bridges now? Keep your options open.

  27. I agree with John’s rant. M. Night is a director who not only puts himself into every movie – which is fine – but puts himself into a usually pivotal role where he imparts important exposition or a relevatory moment. It’s ABSOLUTELY self-serving and for me, anyway, it completely takes me out of the movie.

    Fine, he’s an artist. Fine, not everyone “gets” him. But the fact is, he’s an artist whose art will never be seen without the financial backing of a large studio to rent his cameras, print his film and put it onto movie screens. He’s welcome to go someplace else if a given studio doesn’t share his vision – and he’s welcome to be angry about it – but to publicize the comments at the expense of those who made them is pretty childish and damn unprofessional.

  28. Hey Lou,

    Fair enough… and you’re right… there are lots of these types of disagreements. But I “pick” on this one because not all of them end with a director with an entitlement complex writing a book slamming the other people in the conflict.

    That just really bugged me. :P



  29. Let me add, the creative field is rife with these types of disagreements.

    Why pick on MNS?

    David Caruso, for example, is a much better example of someone who had too high an opinion of himself.

  30. The role that Night casted himself into was a little self-serving.

    He had GREAT moments in his other films, which i think a low key speaking cameo is fine.

    I can understand how people can deteriorate criticism but she is right to point out the mauling of a film critic is very Uwe Bolish.

    We will see the truth once the movie releases.

  31. Never did care that much about Sixth Sense, but I LOVE Unbreakable. His best movie by far. I also liked Signs, even with its ridiculous storyline. I really liked the technical aspects of The Village and the general atmosphere of that film. The acting also was top-notch. The TWIST was pretty silly and movie would have been better without it, but still I wonder why most people hate the movie so much.

    As for this “expose” book… I couldn’t care less.

  32. Hi john,

    I totally agaree with you. I read the same thing on another website and came to the same conclusion.

    I enjoyed the Sixth Sense immensely. I felt it was fresh and new and the twist ending was as good as any hitchcock film. However his subsequent films were disappointing and dare I say it horrible and immature in there writing and directing. Signs was stupid (how many aliens who are hurt by water come to a planet where water dominates a large portion of the planet), and both the village and Unbreakable were just to simplistic (because they both seemed like cheap twilight zone episodes with obvious no twist endings…however Howard’s daughter in the village was pretty damn good).

    I know directors have big egos, but more than every once in awhile, it would be nice to see a humble director that realizes not all his/her shit doesn’t stick.

  33. John, I disagree completely.

    There is a difference between accepting criticism and having faith in your work. I’ve been in similar places several times with my own work.

    Lady in the Water was obviously important to Shyamalan, likely his most passionate project in a while. So when his studio comes to him and says “I don’t get it”, you know what I’d do? I’d leave too.

    I, for one, liked The Village. I guess I accept it for what it is, and not what everybody thought it should have been.

    And also, let me put it this way: a GOOD filmmaker never makes a film that they are unhappy with. So if Shyamalan likes his own movies, power to him.

    Another thing: Shyamalan puts himself in every one of his movies. Is there some reason he shouldn’t put him self in the role of a good writer simply because he’s a writer himself? How is that inapropriate? Ooooh, it rattles some feathers, a writer playing a better writer. I’m sorry. I just don’t get it.

  34. I liked all of Shyamalan’s movies EXCEPT for that garbage movie The Village. I think the guy is great at telling a story and putting a twist in it.

    Now I would have no problem with putting himself in his own movie. If he can act and could pull it off why not? And to be honest I would have loved if he was in Lady In The Water.

    As for the bitching…Well then guy needs to take criticism. If your an actor/actress or director your going to have criticism thrown at your face, suck it up and move on and learn from experience. Whinning in a book is not going to make himself look any better in front of anyone.

  35. I’m not going to slam you… I’m going to agree with you completely.
    My question is… if the movie flops, will he then condemn the entire viewing public and write a book about how we’re all not intelligent enough to “get” his movie. I, personally, think the public may not be willing to run out and see this one based on his name alone. After the lukewarm reception to the village and all. I dont think people have as much faith in him anymore.

  36. Ok. That was a little harsh John.

    Dont get me wrong, the Village was awful. But Unbreakable is still one of my all time favorite films. And I have a lot of respect for a director who, for wrong or right, makes the films HE wants to see. Sure even Hitchcock had a couple of stinkers. That doesnt mean he didnt pursue his style and tone vigilantly.

    I really respect him for going up against Disney of all companies and getting the film He wanted to see in the theatres made. Like it or not, Shyamalan is a director who doesnt really care whether the average person likes his movie or not. He cares that he made the movie that HE wanted to see. Now with things like the sixth sense and Signs and Unbreakable, he made movies that DID appeal to the general population. And if he is happy about how the Village turned out, more power to him, even if it was a pile of garbage.

    I wish more directors had the fortitude to stand up to a studio and make exactly what they wanted.

    PS that previous statement does NOT apply to George Lucas. Because we ALL know what happens when he gets EXACTLY what he wants.. eeww.

  37. That’s interesting…. but I didn’t think the Village was as bad as everyone made it out to be. I think that Shyamalan is perhaps being… a tad egotistical, but I’m really struggling to think of a director who’s not. Everyone has a vision and it’s a pity that they didn’t agree but we really only have Shyamalan’s version of the story. What the hell does he mean by iconoclastic? Iconoclastic denotes worship/awe and I have never ever been in awe of any of his movies. Despite what he’s said, I’m not going to make any solid judgements until I see the movie and decide if it was worth the hissy fit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *