# Lady in the Water Predictions and possible spoilers



## Crothian (Jun 28, 2006)

As we found out with the Signs thread and Village thread and maybe his other two movies, people around here are really good at figuring out the movies.  So, with the new one weeks away I want to hear what people predict for this movie.  I placed possible spoiler in the title because there is a chance people will be right.


----------



## Jamdin (Jun 28, 2006)

I predict that I will watch the movie only after it is released on DVD


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 28, 2006)

The big revelation is that everyone is the movie are really sea monkeys!


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 28, 2006)

I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to see this one or not, since I haven't really enjoyed his last two movies. As a result, I haven't been paying much attention to the trailers, but I have heard it said that M. Night Shyamalan has said that there is no twist in this one.

Could be he's trying to keep people from trying to guess, but maybe it is true this time?


----------



## jaerdaph (Jun 28, 2006)

The butler did it.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 28, 2006)

Yahoo listed the creature as a water nymph.

Wolves are now showing up in the trailers.

I predict I will save $6 and not go to see this movie.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 28, 2006)

Wait, is everyone saying, that it will be a bad film?


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 28, 2006)

I predict that the creature is a member of one of the Fey courts.  The Fey have been sealed away from this world for centuries, but now they have found a way into our world.  Numerous fey creatures pursue and attempt to kill the "lady in the water", but thankfully, the intrepid pool cleaner defends her against all odds.

The Twist: 



Spoiler



The "lady in the water" is actually a member of the Unseelie court, and after the pool man saves her, she kills him/makes him her slave and goes on to figure out a way to release the rest of her court/kind.  The other Fey creatures that have been attacking her are members of the Seelie court, and are trying to save humanity by destroying her and keeping the rest of her kind sealed away.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 29, 2006)

The twist: 



Spoiler



At the end, aliens attack, and the lady in the water splashes them to kill them. Hurray!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 29, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Could be he's trying to keep people from trying to guess, but maybe it is true this time?




I am going to guess that it is indeed true, that there will be no twist.  It isn't at all odd to think the guy wants to try to stretch into a slightly different form of storytelling.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 29, 2006)

My prediction is that this movie will do very poorly in theaters, but will make up for in DVD.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 29, 2006)

I predict she holds forth a sword and presents it to some guy named Arthur.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 29, 2006)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I predict she holds forth a sword and presents it to some guy named Arthur.




Hey- I kind of like that one. That would be a cool twist.

Based on the trailer I saw before Superman last night, though, I am thinking predictions of her being evil/Unseelie may be true, though.


----------



## KaosDevice (Jun 29, 2006)

I would just like it to be a straight forward story with out a twist. I think that would be the biggest mind frell that M. Night could give the viewer at this point. (I had the Village figured out halfway through, so his little bag of tricks is getting a tad played out).


----------



## Dreeble (Jun 30, 2006)

Heya:

 I had thought that the "twist" for the movie (



Spoiler



The people living in the apartment complex around the pool are themselves characters in a story and eventually become aware of this


) had already been revealed.  Were people not aware of this or is this considered common knowledge and can't possibly be "the" twist?

-Dreeble


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 30, 2006)

Wow- never heard that one, Dreeble. 

(Then again, like I said above, I haven't really been paying attention to. Sounds interesting, and might be enough to make me want to check it out...)


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 30, 2006)

Dreeble said:
			
		

> Heya:
> 
> I had thought that the "twist" for the movie (
> 
> ...




That was news to me. All I know is that when I saw the first trailer for this movie I thought he was getting away from his "suspense/horror" genre roots. It seemed like a more fairy-tale like movie and even labeled itself as a "betime story" in the trailer. Now the latest stuff I'm seeing make it seem like a horror/monster/suspense flick. What is the deal with this thing anyway? And the people are in a story? Huh?


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 30, 2006)

Hmmmm, according to IMDB, the plotline is



Spoiler



Apartment building superintendent Cleveland Heep (Giamatti) rescues what he thinks is a young woman from the pool he maintains. When he discovers that she is actually a character from a bedtime story who is trying to make the journey back to her home, he works with his tenants to protect his new friend from the creatures that are determined to keep her in our world

If what Dreeble says is true, then presumably the twist is that the people in the apartment are the fictional people, not her.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jun 30, 2006)

Not to hijack this thread, but a movie that just came out on DVD that has some surprisingly good twists to it is Demi Moore's "Half Light". (Just finished watching it so thought it worth a mention.  I had heard it was good, and it actually was. That's another twist - a good Demi Moore movie...)


----------



## Bront (Jun 30, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> That was news to me. All I know is that when I saw the first trailer for this movie I thought he was getting away from his "suspense/horror" genre roots. It seemed like a more fairy-tale like movie and even labeled itself as a "betime story" in the trailer. Now the latest stuff I'm seeing make it seem like a horror/monster/suspense flick. What is the deal with this thing anyway? And the people are in a story? Huh?



Apparently, this was inspired by a bedtime story he was told as a child.  or at least that's what he told one of the Magazines I read in a waitingroom.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 30, 2006)

I am really looking forward to this film.

And, I do not think there is a twist in the end.  I think people who are the most disappointed with his films are also the most obsessed with the "twist" ending issue.  

He's a good film maker.  His directing is very good.  His actors tend to be very good, and he gets a lot out of them.  His writing is compelling.  I don't get why people cannot enjoy his movies without it being all about "the twist ending".


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2006)

IMO Sham-bam has proven his twists can suck the fun out of a movie. 







			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> He's a good film maker.  His directing is very good.  His actors tend to be very good, and he gets a lot out of them.  His writing is compelling.  I don't get why people cannot enjoy his movies without it being all about "the twist ending".



I am primarily a horror fan, not a drama major, I can wait for the big reveal, but if my chain gets yanked and there is no monstrous payoff, i want blood in real life. 

I go to movies that are in genres i like that use fantastic elements. If there is nothing out of the mundane, i will not watch the movie. A good twist to me is unbreakable's twist, it strenthed that worlds fantastic element. A bad twist is the viliage's twist, robbing the movie of it's fantastic element. It would be like if at the very end of the movie, Bruce Willis' character in Unbreakable was revealed to have a bone thickening cancer that would eventually fuse his skeleton in place.

Hell, If Shammy's DM-NPC had a few werewolf hinting features i would have not been anywhere near as PO'ed when i left that movie. If a trailer promises me Creatures of the forest, i want Creatures of the forest, not a tale to entertain people who's lives suck so much running off into the woods sounds like a good idea to protect thier kids.

A movie of a mother talking with her kids while putting them to bed. As they reminisce about recent happenings, it is eventually revealed that they live in a heavily armed  anti establishment compound fighting off a government raid. That is a “what would you do to protect your children” movie I would be willing to watch. Not a Lifetime movie maquerading as a period peice.

If IcyCool's guess was on the money, I'd see Lady in the Water in a heartbeat.


----------



## KenM (Jun 30, 2006)

I predict like MNS' other movies it will suck.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 30, 2006)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Not to hijack this thread, but a movie that just came out on DVD that has some surprisingly good twists to it is Demi Moore's "Half Light".




If that movie was a road with twists in it, the run-up to each twist was a really long straight-away with several blatant warning signs along the way. 

I'm looking forward to The Lady in the Water. All of M. Night's movies have been very well done in terms of writing.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jun 30, 2006)

Just saw the third trailer....that was no wolf.  Unless it was the worst-rendered CG wolf ever created.  Besides, it was clearly bipedal as it jumped at the end of the trailer.  It almost does sound like maybe this could be about the Fey, or something...

Banshee


----------



## Crothian (Jul 4, 2006)

Well, the CGI didn't look good on the trailers I've seen.  But a walking wolf is not out of the realms of movie making.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jul 4, 2006)

I haven't done any looking but just from the title and the trailer, it would seem that somewhere there has to be a sword and a dude named Arthur.


----------



## Bobitron (Jul 5, 2006)

I am anxiously awaiting the release. Big fan of his movies. I got a couple chills watching the latest trailer.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jul 5, 2006)

Eosin the Red said:
			
		

> I haven't done any looking but just from the title and the trailer, it would seem that somewhere there has to be a sword and a dude named Arthur.



Why do people keep saying this? The Arthur stories involve the Lady in the *Lake*, not the Lady in the *Water*.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 5, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Why do people keep saying this? The Arthur stories involve the Lady in the *Lake*, not the Lady in the *Water*.



Its still just some watery tart lobbing a scimitar.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 16, 2006)

So, any more guesses?  How about of the plot or story of the movie?


----------



## Klaus (Jul 16, 2006)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I predict she holds forth a sword and presents it to some guy named Arthur.



 I was gonna say that the twist is that there would be no twist, but i like this one better.


----------



## Chimera (Jul 18, 2006)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I predict she holds forth a sword and presents it to some guy named Arthur.




Watery tarts distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.


I predict that I will not see this movie.


And now I have that Robot Chicken thing about Shaymalan stuck in my head.

_What a twist!_


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 18, 2006)

Well, I just saw LitW. None of you were right, especially not KenM.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 18, 2006)

Stop bouncin' about and spill them beans, Mark!


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 18, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Stop bouncin' about and spill them beans, Mark!




Only very briefly. The bedtime story involves a sea nymph who has only a few days to awaken the spirit of a writer whose work will lead to great social change in the future. The various quirky characters who live in the apartment building become involved in protecting the nymph from the monster who seeks her destruction. This monster is not a wolf, not a werewolf, and at no point in time is bidepal. Many of the quirky characters have special roles which are awakened by the sea nymph's presence. LitW is part screwball comedy, part fairy tale, part melodrama, and part monster movie. As always, M. Night's characters are strongly written and richly human. There was more laughter, cheering, and clapping from the standing-room-only audience during this film than during any film I've seen in recent years.

Oh yes! There's also a delightful "bite me" aimed by M. Night at professional film critics worked into LitW's plot, especially at those who think they're better qualified to judge an artist's intentions and metaphors than is the artist himself.


----------



## Bobitron (Jul 18, 2006)

I can't wait. July 21st cannot come soon enough.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 19, 2006)

I am really looking forward to this movie.

I'm also tired of people thinking their cool by piling on the bandwagon of bagging on M. Night movies.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 19, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I'm also tired of people thinking their cool by piling on the bandwagon of bagging on M. Night movies.




This is a gamer boards; we are all cool because of that.  No one needs to prove they are cool here like you say.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (Jul 19, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Oh yes! There's also a delightful "bite me" aimed by M. Night at professional film critics worked into LitW's plot, especially at those who think they're better qualified to judge an artist's intentions and metaphors than is the artist himself.




Yet I would say critics are more than entitled to judge the quality of the finished product, regardless of the artist's intentions. The reading/viewing public is entitled, in turn, to ignore the critics, which they frequently do, but that doesn't imply that professional critics have no value.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 19, 2006)

Aesthetic Monk said:
			
		

> Yet I would say critics are more than entitled to judge the quality of the finished product, regardless of the artist's intentions.




I didn't say anything about judging quality. I specifically mentioned judging intention and metaphor. Sort of like complaining that The Village was a lousy monster movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make a monster movie. Or complaining that Signs doesn't make any sense as an alien invasion movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make an alien invasion movie. Or, perhaps more pointed, to complain that the characters in Shaolin Soccer don't play soccer according to the FIFA rules of the game.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 19, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Only very briefly. The bedtime story involves a sea nymph who has only a few days to awaken the spirit of a writer whose work will lead to great social change in the future. The various quirky characters who live in the apartment building become involved in protecting the nymph from the monster who seeks her destruction. This monster is not a wolf, not a werewolf, and at no point in time is bidepal. Many of the quirky characters have special roles which are awakened by the sea nymph's presence. LitW is part screwball comedy, part fairy tale, part melodrama, and part monster movie. As always, M. Night's characters are strongly written and richly human.



Sounds _very_ Changling:_The Dreaming_ and a hint Athurian.



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Sort of like complaining that The Village was a lousy monster movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make a monster movie. Or complaining that Signs doesn't make any sense as an alien invasion movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make an alien invasion movie. Or, perhaps more pointed, to complain that the characters in Shaolin Soccer don't play soccer according to the FIFA rules of the game.



Shaolin Soccer made no lies it was an over the top wuxia comedy. Signs and The Village did lie, using deceit in the actual movie to appear as a genre it was not.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 19, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Signs and The Village did lie, using deceit in the actual movie to appear as a genre it was not.




Even assuming you're right (and I'm not saying you are), that still doesn't change the fact Signs an alien invasion movie nor was The Village a monster movie. That someone fell for the "lie" might be reason to be upset, but only adds fuel to the fire that the artist succeeded in being smarter than his reviewers.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 19, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> I specifically mentioned judging intention and metaphor. Sort of like complaining that The Village was a lousy monster movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make a monster movie. Or complaining that Signs doesn't make any sense as an alien invasion movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make an alien invasion movie.




If the artist fails to make his intentions known to someone watching the movie, it's not fair to blame the viewer.  Viewers are not mind readers and should not be expected to be.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 19, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Even assuming you're right (and I'm not saying you are), that still doesn't change the fact Signs an alien invasion movie nor was The Village a monster movie. That someone fell for the "lie" might be reason to be upset, but only adds fuel to the fire that the artist succeeded in being smarter than his reviewers.




Not really.  I can say this post is about bunnies when in reality my intention is the post is about ham.  If I don't give any real hints the post is about ham and everyone beleives it is about bunnies, that doesn't make me smart.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (Jul 19, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything about judging quality. I specifically mentioned judging intention and metaphor. Sort of like complaining that The Village was a lousy monster movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make a monster movie. Or complaining that Signs doesn't make any sense as an alien invasion movie, which completely ignores that the artist's intention wasn't to make an alien invasion movie. Or, perhaps more pointed, to complain that the characters in Shaolin Soccer don't play soccer according to the FIFA rules of the game.




For the record, I did mostly like "Signs," and I think it works pretty well as a parable or a meditiation on faith. I'm not sure whether I felt "lied to" or not by it; I guess I was willing to roll with it OK. I'll admit that those darn critics scared me away from The Village.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jul 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Not really.  I can say this post is about bunnies when in reality my intention is the post is about ham.  If I don't give any real hints the post is about ham and everyone beleives it is about bunnies, that doesn't make me smart.




Unless you are talking about devil bunnies. And that is what MKS did with his movies. With some things (like Event Horizon) I agree false advertizing is bad but with a MKS movie if you can probably figure that there is another level/meaning that has nothing to do with the genre it is wraped in.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Jul 20, 2006)

I've seen one M. Night whatshisname's movies... 6th Sense...  and I didn't mean to watch it.  My wife brought it home and the cable was out, so there was nothing else to watch.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 20, 2006)

I really liked the Village.  Like Unbreakable, certain parts of the movie were really inspiring in the teutonic quest sort of manner.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 20, 2006)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Unless you are talking about devil bunnies. And that is what MKS did with his movies. With some things (like Event Horizon) I agree false advertizing is bad but with a MKS movie if you can probably figure that there is another level/meaning that has nothing to do with the genre it is wraped in.




I think people though hear him say there is connections and then believe it.  I never heard anyone around hewre say Signs had demons in it until someone linked to an interview.  I get that movie is about faith, but faith doesn't mean demons anymore then it means aliens.  In past threads on his movies I always asked posters to point out in the movies were the other level/meaning is and no one ever could point it out.  Frankly it reminds me of going to an art exhibit and listening to people repeat intelligent things about the art that they had heard or read without any real understanding to explain it themselves.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 20, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I can say this post is about bunnies when in reality my intention is the post is about ham.  If I don't give any real hints the post is about ham and everyone beleives it is about bunnies, that doesn't make me smart.




Admittedly. And that's not what M. Night has done in any of his movies.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> ...but with a MKS movie if you can probably figure that there is another level/meaning that has nothing to do with the genre it is wraped in.




Exactly. M. Night's movie are steeped in Eastern philosophy. In Eastern philosophy, what a thing appears to be is not what the thing is. For M. Night to come out in his movie and say, "My movie is steeped in Eastern philosophy. Nothing is what is appears." would not be good movie making. That some viewers miss his implication isn't necessarily his fault.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 20, 2006)

I begin to understand why I see Signs as a failure (at least for me): 
Apparently many viewers (including me) didn't get the "demon-part". I did get the twist of Unbreakable or Sixth Sense. It was a nice twist and surprise. I understood it, it made sense. But there is no point in Signs where I suddenly understood "Damn it, they are not Aliens, they are frigging Demons!". That alone is not the problem - I doubt I really understood _2001_, either, but in Signs, the superficial-concept of aliens has to many holes in it, and I do not only fail to understand the movie, the movie seems stupid and bad. 

Maybe, if I will rewatch Signs now, with the new view of "aliens=demons", I will actually be able to enjoy it better, so the movie isn't entirely lost now. But on first viewing, it was a pretty awful movie for me.


----------



## Aesthetic Monk (Jul 20, 2006)

Here is a defense of MNS's movies. Really, it is a defense. Really. You just have to keep reading.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 21, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Admittedly. And that's not what M. Night has done in any of his movies.




In Signs the aliens are thought to be demons but in the movie there is nothing to indicate that.


----------



## Wystan (Jul 21, 2006)

(POSTED FROM THE ABOVE LINK:


> Shyamalan, by contrast, doesn't make sequels or franchises (he turned down a chance to script Indiana Jones IV). He doesn't adapt Dan Brown best sellers, or Robert Ludlum potboilers, or Disney theme-park rides. He doesn't rely on CGI, or even use it much—and while he seems to love comic books as much as any of his Marvel and DC-adapting peers, his own superhero movie, Unbreakable, did something different and more interesting. Unbreakable feels incomplete at times, like a shard of a larger, better motion picture, and it doesn't use Bruce Willis' essential flatness and opacity nearly as well as The Sixth Sense did. But for all its flaws, it succeeds in bringing the superhero genre down to earth in ways that no Superman or Batman film could even think about attempting (consider the remarkable moment when Willis discovers his superhuman strength while lifting weights in the basement with his son). By example, the movie also hints that Singer's more conventional comic-book movies—and Raimi's and Nolan's, for that matter—are a good way to make a living, but a creative dead end.
> 
> Similarly, Steven Spielberg was widely praised for stripping last summer's War of the Worlds of countless genre tropes—panicked generals, heroic presidents, mad scientists, and so on. But it was Shyamalan's Signs, three years earlier, that was actually the more daring space-invader movie, in its attempt to meld science-fiction and horror by bringing the aliens home, to a single farmhouse and family, and using them as the sum of all our metaphysical fears. Sure, it lost momentum in the last act, with a literal deus ex machina and a less-than-frightening computer-generated alien, but then again, the third-act problem is one that no alien-invasion movie has managed to solve, Spielberg's least of all.
> 
> ...


----------



## JoeBlank (Jul 21, 2006)

I've like all of his movies fairly well, and have no problem with the bait-and-switch or twists. As others have said, the characters are usually solid, and so are the actors. 

But I do note that the Atlanta Journal Constitution reviewer gave LitW an F.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/movies/content/shared/movies/reviews/L/ladyinthewater/ajc.html

(site may require registration, bugmenot.com says to use biteme@fakeinformation.com and coxsux)


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 21, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> In Signs the aliens are thought to be demons but in the movie there is nothing to indicate that.




Thought to be demons by whom? Anyone whose opinion merits serious consideration (like, for example, M. Night himself)?

Admittedly, I've bumped into that strand of thought, but nowhere other than here. I certainly never got the impression the aliens were really supposed to be demons. What the aliens really were supposed to be is rather beside the point. The movie isn't about the aliens. It's about Mel Gibson's character regaining his faith by finally seeing the interconnectedness of what originally appeared to be random, purposeless, even nonsensical events, starting with the death of his wife. This idea - that events aren't ever truly random and purposeless, but rather form an intricate web of causality - is also part and parcel of Eastern philosophy.


----------



## Crothian (Jul 21, 2006)

not all that important...move along


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 23, 2006)

Well I saw LitW tonight, and I went in being a bit skeptical.  It takes a lot for a movie to make me feel it sucks, so the main reason I went was because even if it was "so-so" I still would have gotten enjoyment out of it.

That said...  I liked it alot.  I think it is one of his better movies.  In the middle of watching it, I felt that my "D&D" buddied would really like it (so I am going to recommend it to them).  There is a lot of fairy tale talk, and there are a lot of fantasy words (names of creatures really) that D&D players would understand/recognize.

Another person commented that it reminded them a little bit like "Lost".  Because you don't know exactly what is going on, and all these people have an unknown connection.

And no, there is no twist (per se)...  There are parts where you think you know who's who, but you don't find out for sure until the end.  I did figure a couple peopel out, what their "purpose" was, but not everyone.

If you plan on seeing this, just go with an open mind.  And let me give you this one piece of advice.  If you want to try and figure out the end of the movie, pay attention to everyone, especially those introduced in the beginning of the film.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 24, 2006)

I saw this on Friday.  Perhaps Iowa audiences are a little too down-to-earth or something.  Several people got up and walked out.  I, frankly, was very disappointed and would have preferred to wait until Netflix.

I'm always one of the first to suspend belief and get into a movie.  I had a really hard time doing this with this film.  For one thing, the names of the mythical creatures were .. silly.  Narf (the nymph).  Madam Narf (a special nymph).  Scrunt (the wolf things).  They were just so silly-sounding that I couldn't get into it; also, I really couldn't be scared of something called a scrunt, and it just reminded me of the little goofy animal in "Ice Age," although I know that's a scrat, not a scrunt.

I didn't feel like some of the characters were believable.  Freddy Rodriguez's character, for example.  Who in the world would be so stupid as to build up the muscles on only one side of their body?  Who does that?  Nobody I've ever heard of.  I got the impression that the film was supposed to show the drudgery of real life in the early scenes, but Freddy's character just blew all that for me.  The eccentricities of the others, sure; there's nothing too odd about a guy who does lots of crossword puzzles or even someone who sits in his dark apartment watching old news programs 24-7.  Those characters seem realistic to me; Freddy's doesn't.  And when there's a very unrealistic character, it's that much more difficult for me to immerse myself in the make-believe.  I'm even more able to buy a water nymph or a scrunt (shudder) than I am to buy someone who maligns their body like that.

I wasn't necessarily expecting a twist although I thought there were some minor ones; you think you know who the guild is but you don't, etc.  I didn't need a twist to enjoy the movie.  But I expected a lot more out of the ending than I got.

Very disappointed moviegoer here.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 24, 2006)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Freddy Rodriguez's character, for example.  Who in the world would be so stupid as to build up the muscles on only one side of their body?  Who does that?  Nobody I've ever heard of.




Trogdor for one.


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 24, 2006)

> Trogdor for one.




Who I've never heard of *shrug*

I find that most people are just people.  They don't do such really odd things as the people in this film, and that's what bothered me the most.


----------



## Jhamin (Jul 25, 2006)

I go to movies for several reasons.  I want to be entertained, I want to think, I want to appreciate craftsmanship.

Ya know what?  I *Love* Shyamalan movies.  They do all three.

I think some are better than others, but all the ones so far have been worth watching.  There are so many by-the-numbers movies churned out week to week that it all sorts of blurs together.  How many moves are there that actually do anything unexpected, or anything we haven't seen before?

The Sixth Sense had a twist.  Which is why it has become a modern classic instead of an above average supernatural thriller.  People decided that *all* of Shyamalan's movies now had to have a twist ending.  They then proceeded to get upset when his later movies didn't all follow the same formula.  (Or said the info given at the end was stupid, and therefore the movie was stupid, even if it had little to do with the point of the movie)


Thing is, there is a formula but "twist ending" isn't it.  Shyamalan does each of his moves in a new genre.  And in each of these genres he explores and plays with the conventions of that genre while telling a story that usually is only vaguely related to the sorts of stories that usually get told there.

When you watch these movies you have to explore them as the characters do.  You don't automatically know how the movie ends 10 min into it.  THAT IS A GOOD THING.

Which isn't to say that you are a moron if you don't like these things.  Each one is set very strongly in a specific genre and if you hate the tropes of that genre there is little to like in the movie version of it.

If you don't like faerie tale logic, where people work out only one side of their body because all a guardian needs is a strong right arm, then The Lady in the Water is a really stupid movie.

My Fiance and I went expecting to see a Russian Faerie tale, and we were very pleasently enganged.


----------



## rom90125 (Jul 25, 2006)

My wife and I saw it over the weekend and we both walked away liking this film more than our previous venture...Stuperman Returns.  Granted, some of the characters were way over the top and the names of the creatures were a tad goofy, but all in all it was an entertaining rebound from The Village.


----------



## Almacov (Jul 25, 2006)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Just saw the third trailer....that was no wolf.  Unless it was the worst-rendered CG wolf ever created.  Besides, it was clearly bipedal as it jumped at the end of the trailer.  It almost does sound like maybe this could be about the Fey, or something...
> 
> Banshee




Well, judging by some of the posters I've seen, and ads on the sides of buses, the wolf-shaped thing is definately some form of animate plant creature. It seems composed of thick, thorny vines, as though it were a creature with the "Wood element" template in the Manual of The Planes.

I'll probably see the film myself... I'm not sure whether I'll be seeing it in a theatre though.


----------



## Justin (Jul 25, 2006)

Almacov said:
			
		

> ...the wolf-shaped thing is definately some form of animate plant creature.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 25, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think people though hear him say there is connections and then believe it.  I never heard anyone around hewre say Signs had demons in it until someone linked to an interview.  I get that movie is about faith, but faith doesn't mean demons anymore then it means aliens.  In past threads on his movies I always asked posters to point out in the movies were the other level/meaning is and no one ever could point it out.  Frankly it reminds me of going to an art exhibit and listening to people repeat intelligent things about the art that they had heard or read without any real understanding to explain it themselves.




I did it, here, when I said I went back and watched Signs from a different perspective not going in assuming it was aliens, and pointed out each scene that struck me as indicating a different level than the alien level.  I don't know if you commented on the thread or not, but it was certainly done, and I seem to recall a few others saying similar things as well.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Thought to be demons by whom? Anyone whose opinion merits serious consideration (like, for example, M. Night himself)?
> 
> Admittedly, I've bumped into that strand of thought, but nowhere other than here. I certainly never got the impression the aliens were really supposed to be demons.




I think you are being way to harsh on that theory.  It was my temptation to do so as well.  So one day I went and re-watched it assuming this time they were demons and not aliens.

And I'll be damned if it didn't hold up quite well.  I posted it here, with a break-down, and other doubters read it and some were surprised at the consistency of the demon theory, and the number of things usually missed that really did point to the demon-theme.

I suggest you go back and watch it again with an open mind, discarding any sense that you know for sure what they are.  I think you will find a surprise.



			
				rom90125 said:
			
		

> My wife and I saw it over the weekend and we both walked away liking this film more than our previous venture...Stuperman Returns.  Granted, some of the characters were way over the top and the names of the creatures were a tad goofy, but all in all it was an entertaining rebound from The Village.




I liked it a lot also.

And there was no surprise endings.  There were some surprises, but not in the surprise-twist theme like many of his other movies, just more in the ordinary building a story sort of way.  In fact, he tells you early in the movie each event that is supposed to happen, and how things should end, and they do all of that just as he tells you.  

And I thought it was really funny what happened with the film critic.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Jul 25, 2006)

Haven't seen it tho I think more of the blame should go towards whomever makes the trailers not MNS. Course it gets cloudy if he's got to approve it before it gets aired. However some 'showmanship' has to be used otherwise the film won't make money since no one's butt is in the seat. PT Barnum was famous for this like his 6' tall man eating chicken.

Unfortunately Hollywood has a tendency to stupid-ify things for Da Masses to understand plot points. True, (our nation as a whole) we're a few fries short of a Happy Meal at times but dumbing everything down tends to make things worse. The Truman Show might've been better had the twist not been spoiled in the trailers. Compare that to say Stir of Echoes.

Honestly, I didn't think I was being too surprised with his first 3 movies. I was expecting a semi horror / mostly thriller flick with Sixth Sense ("I see dead people.") and wondered what the heck was going on in Unbreakable so figured a mystery / thriller (the only survivor of a train crash). As for Signs, I was thinking another horror flick with that chupacabra looking thing out in the middle of nowhere, as it brought back fond memories of John Carpenter's The Thing. I didn't see The Village but I wasn't interested in what I saw (the trailer).

Now I don't know if I'll watch it or not since Hollywood's making me kinda depressed with all these original movies coming out. I've high hopes for Spidey 3 and TMNT tho when this comes out on PPV or DVD, I'll probably watch it, especially since they'll be cheaper then.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 25, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And I thought it was really funny what happened with the film critic.




I wonder sometimes if this film's lack of critical acclaim can be partially blamed on that


----------



## ssampier (Jul 29, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am really looking forward to this film.
> 
> And, I do not think there is a twist in the end.  I think people who are the most disappointed with his films are also the most obsessed with the "twist" ending issue.
> 
> He's a good film maker.  His directing is very good.  His actors tend to be very good, and he gets a lot out of them.  His writing is compelling.  I don't get why people cannot enjoy his movies without it being all about "the twist ending".




I love twists as long it makes sense. I thought the Signs twist was out-of-left field. I thought the Sixth Sense twist was great, but did lessen my desire to see the movie again. I am ambivalent about the Village twist (the first "twist" was obvious, the second was not).


----------



## Firebeetle (Jul 29, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> My prediction is that this movie will do very poorly in theaters, but will make up for in DVD.




I think you might be right on the money there. 

I think the director missed his mark here. This was based on a story he would tell his girls at night, and my daughter loved it but found the monster too scary. He should have rethought this as a more family friendly movie. It would not have been a big shift.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Aug 7, 2006)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> Who I've never heard of *shrug*
> 
> I find that most people are just people.  They don't do such really odd things as the people in this film, and that's what bothered me the most.




There is also:

Nightmare

and

The Warshaper (guy on the left)


----------



## Welverin (Aug 14, 2006)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I love twists as long it makes sense. I thought the Signs twist was out-of-left field.




Well seeing as how there really wasn't one (certainly nothing of significance as say the one in the sixth sense), it's no shock it was lacking.



			
				Hijinks said:
			
		

> I find that most people are just people.  They don't do such really odd things as the people in this film, and that's what bothered me the most.




Except this isn't the real world, it's a fairy tale where such ridiculousness is perfectly acceptable. If you accepted this fact instead of apply real world logic you’d likely be less bothered.


----------

