English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

We did not mind Jedis, Chewbacca, R2D2 and C-3PO; we relished them. We didn’t question Sauron, Gollum or Balrog. Then, why is this outcry when Shyamalan introduces Narfs, Scrunts and Tartuics? What is the explanation? Why is ‘Harry Potter’ not ridiculed? Agreed, the ‘Star Wars’ is set in the future, and ‘The Lord of the Rings’ in the past. The Lady in the Water is a bed time story. Can’t the critics accept a few non-real characters in a bedtime story?

2006-07-28 12:36:54 · 12 answers · asked by peter p 1 in Entertainment & Music Movies

12 answers

I agree with you. I think they really don't understand what the movies are supposed to be about (they're not really supposed to be the scary movies people seem to think they are), so they focus on how it fails as the movie they think it's supposed to be, rather than how it succeeds as the movie it's actually supposed to be. Signs wasn't about aliens, for example, they were just a storytelling tool. So, when you focus on the aliens, of course you're going to to be dissatisfied. They're just not used to things that require special effects or costumes being storytelling tools, rather than the whole story.

2006-07-28 14:14:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I believe that Night Shyamalan is an acquired taste, like Indian food for example. You wont go nuts about it the first time...but you may go back again after a couple of times.

Most critics are so used to the usual bland stuff that they are hesitant to try or see something different. I have loved every Night Shyamalan work regardless of what the critics said or how well it did commercially.

2006-07-28 12:43:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good point to the Q. Please believe this if nothing else. Mr. Shyamalan doesn't strictly care what "critics" say. His interest is in what the majority think, who spend the money to see his productions. I suspect he weeps all the way to the bank over what some ego driven, narrow thinking, critics have to report.

Even bad publicity is still advertising, and HE seems to get an adequate amount. I personally like his work,,though for entertainment rather than a guide for my life course.

Rev. Steven

2006-07-28 12:44:43 · answer #3 · answered by DIY Doc 7 · 0 0

Because M. Night Shyamalan sucks. I created those critics for a reason, n00b. I was on coke the time I created M. Night Shyamalan, and I figured I'd let him roll on. But I made sure I made enough critics that new something about something and something. Sorry, my acid is wearing off.

2006-07-28 12:41:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

M Night Shyamalan is the most over rate person sense St.
Francis of Assise

2006-07-28 12:41:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I believe Shyamalans movies won't be appreciated until a later time. He's one of those people ahead of the times. I think he's completely original and is highly underappreciated.

2006-07-28 12:40:17 · answer #6 · answered by burn20out 3 · 0 0

His characters do not measure up to the caliber of Star Wars. He is overrated, "mysterious", a fad, but that's just my opinion.

2006-07-28 13:21:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Some people just don't understand him...it takes thought and insight so if u accept them go u! You're not an idiot!

2006-07-28 12:40:27 · answer #8 · answered by Love always, Kortnei 6 · 0 0

That is why they are called critics. Who cares about what a few yuppie people that call themselves critics think about it.

2006-07-28 12:40:35 · answer #9 · answered by ? 1 · 0 0

Your first two examples were of fantasy lands, M.Nights movie trys to tie it to reality.

2006-07-28 12:40:55 · answer #10 · answered by kpizura 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers