Shyamalan a ding-dong

Outing alert: Buck is Michael Bamberger.

The idea and the plot, IMO, both suck. Here's my problem with it, for the 87th time, and why it's a piece of crap---he never explains why everyone in the apartment building/Holiday Inn immediately believes this crap. I mean, I assume he figures everyone of the tenants is like you.

I don't like Tom Waits, either, so there. And while I'm sure my taste and Rex Reed's aren't the same, haven't you noticed that most critics are panning this self-absorbed, self-indulgent nonsense? Or have you been living in a Cove cave for the past week?

 

Not at all. A violent death is great in a bedtime story. Sends the kids to dreamland in a good frame of mind.

 

I have noticed that most critics didn't like the movie. I'm just giving my opinion.
I like the idea: Regular people find themselves within a mythical story as it unfolds and must figure out the roles they must play.
I like the plot: Mythical creature comes to provide boon to mankind but is opposed by evil creature. Modern people living in an aprtment building find out about it and try to help, finding redemption through belief.

Where it breaks down is in the story — the details and development of the idea and the plot. That's where the holes and flaws lie.Had it been developed as a fully realized story before becoming a screen play, I think it would have worked better.

 

Many classic fairytales and children's stories contain elements of danger and even death. There's nothing wrong with that.
And there is only one death in the movie. It happens offscreen. It is not important to the story, and there's no indication it is part of the story that Shyamalan told his children.

 

You make some valid points, but I tend to doubt Shyamalan didn't tell his children that critics are evil and must be punished. I hope he wasn't egotistical enough to tell them that his stories would save humankind, but I sure wouldn't put it past him.

 

And it still doesn't bother you that every character except the evil film critic buys into this?

However, I will admit that I am considering changing my screen name to M. Nite Suburba in honor of this incredible visionary.

 

The critic never got the chance to buy into or dismiss what was happening. The super character never gave him the chance.
The way the characters around the apartment building buy into what is happening certainly is a big hole in the story. So is the flat, blandness of the writer character, which has more to do with the screen play than it does with Shyamalan's wooden performance. Considering the importance of the writer character to the larger purpose of the story if not the immediate action of the story, he should have been more interesting if not dynamic.
There are a lot of details that could/should have been worked out before the screen play stage.

 

I still think the story should never have gotten past the pitch meeting, but I give you credit for admitting there are holes.

I'm just upset because I was working on a story about a building superintendent who discovers a milf, instead of a narf, in his pool. I guess I'll have to shelve it now.