M. Night Shame-alan


Author Topic: M. Night Shame-alan  (Read 12726 times)

afi_village

  • LITW

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 190
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2008, 08:14:47 AM »
The only point to me from most of the posts you people made just completely turned me off of ever posting here again. You people are all very rude. I hope you report this statement to the admin. I've never been so unwelcomed.

i completly agree!  this site has totally changed.  seriously people, get off your high horses! he clearly wasn't using the word "gay" as an insult.  if you people are so easily offended then how can you be SO in love with a movie that you say is just a fun b movie that isn't meant to be taken seriously but is all about suicide?  using suicide as a joke or something to be taken lightly is far more offensive to me then someone using the term "gay" in the way he did. 

where do you get that we are supposed to help the environment from this movie.

if you are saying that the plants killing people and the interview on the tv at the end of the movie was not implying that we need to save the environment you are over-analyzing. 
OH MY GOD...i was at a placebo concert last night and i was second row standing right in front of brian...then i got steve's drumstick!  HELL YEAH!!!

okokokok

  • LITW

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 175
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2008, 11:48:21 AM »
Quote
i completly agree!  this site has totally changed.  seriously people, get off your high horses! he clearly wasn't using the word "gay" as an insult.  if you people are so easily offended then how can you be SO in love with a movie that you say is just a fun b movie that isn't meant to be taken seriously but is all about suicide?  using suicide as a joke or something to be taken lightly is far more offensive to me then someone using the term "gay" in the way he did.

You couldn't be more wrong about everything you said here. 

a.  He was using the term gay as a negative word to describe something he didn't like.  You must think it is cool and a good way to get your point across.  It reflects negatively on the person saying it and it paints their argument.  There are plenty of people who gave negative arguments that had completely civil discussions with those that liked the movie.  I was not offended at all, but It makes me hard to respect the opininion when people use  "that is gay" as description and backup to their point.  You disagree I guess.

b. Just because the movie is in the style of a b-movie does not mean it shouldn't be taken seriously at all.  It just means a movie doesn't HAVE to only be one thing.  M Night said if people walk away from this movie thinking only about the themes, then great.  But he said that that the themes are not in front of the film is all.  Of course, you have taken it to the extreme and say that we ONLY said "yea, hey it's just a fun movie".  Man, just say whatever makes your point stronger I guess, even it it is a complete fabrication.

c.  This movie is about suicide huh?  Are these people killing themselves because they are depressed or something? Christ.

d.  Just because we may be arguing the way someone reviewed the movie, does NOT mean we necessarily love it.  I don't love it.

Please don't lump everyones responses together as the same people, or like we are on the same side.  I clearly and specifically only pointed out that the person felt his review was so important that he needed to make a whole new post.  I also was highlighting that with the fact the he obviously hasn't read many other reviews here because most have been negative, and made a comment like he thought he had some maverick opinion!  And then I was commenting on how he used the word gay as a negative way of describing a large part of the film.  But, I did also say that most everything he had to say was legitimate.


So you're the one that should get off your high horse.


EDIT:
Don't think I forgot about your part in the Lady In The Water discussion where you suggested that those who liked that movie were fooling themselves, and acting blindly.  Oh, it's also the discussion where you said you wanted "some indisputable evidence as to why this film is a masterpiece", as if there is such a thing.  That's called being on a high horse.



« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 12:14:47 PM by okokokok »

steinmansbrain

  • The Village

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 129
    • Email
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2008, 01:29:50 PM »
I find the way you used the term 'Christ' offensive...


Not really ;)

okokokok

  • LITW

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 175
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #18 on: June 19, 2008, 02:55:18 PM »
Frankly, I find it offensive that you are offended.

(I don't feel like putting a cute little smiley, but this is where it would go if I did)

JWMMakerofMusic

  • Wide Awake

  • Offline
  • **

  • 18
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #19 on: June 19, 2008, 09:01:05 PM »

There are plenty of people who gave negative arguments that had completely civil discussions with those that liked the movie.


That's the point I was trying to get across, and the fact that the poster is in his 20s.  So embarrassing imho. ;D

Also, saying "Christ" in that manner could offend the churchy types. ;D But it's all good mate.  Thanks for backing up my side.
1. Sixth Sense
2. Lady in the Water
3. Unbreakable
4. The Village
5. Signs

okokokok

  • LITW

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 175
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2008, 09:32:40 PM »
Quote
Also, saying "Christ" in that manner could offend the churchy types.

My point wasn't about being offended.  I was not.  In fact, that was the least of my concerns.  My point is how one is to be taken seriously in a discussion when someone uses such terms to describe what they thought was not good.

afi_village

  • LITW

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 190
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2008, 04:33:20 AM »
Quote
i completly agree!  this site has totally changed.  seriously people, get off your high horses! he clearly wasn't using the word "gay" as an insult.  if you people are so easily offended then how can you be SO in love with a movie that you say is just a fun b movie that isn't meant to be taken seriously but is all about suicide?  using suicide as a joke or something to be taken lightly is far more offensive to me then someone using the term "gay" in the way he did.

You couldn't be more wrong about everything you said here. 

a.  He was using the term gay as a negative word to describe something he didn't like.  You must think it is cool and a good way to get your point across.  It reflects negatively on the person saying it and it paints their argument.  There are plenty of people who gave negative arguments that had completely civil discussions with those that liked the movie.  I was not offended at all, but It makes me hard to respect the opininion when people use  "that is gay" as description and backup to their point.  You disagree I guess.

b. Just because the movie is in the style of a b-movie does not mean it shouldn't be taken seriously at all.  It just means a movie doesn't HAVE to only be one thing.  M Night said if people walk away from this movie thinking only about the themes, then great.  But he said that that the themes are not in front of the film is all.  Of course, you have taken it to the extreme and say that we ONLY said "yea, hey it's just a fun movie".  Man, just say whatever makes your point stronger I guess, even it it is a complete fabrication.

c.  This movie is about suicide huh?  Are these people killing themselves because they are depressed or something? Christ.

d.  Just because we may be arguing the way someone reviewed the movie, does NOT mean we necessarily love it.  I don't love it.

Please don't lump everyones responses together as the same people, or like we are on the same side.  I clearly and specifically only pointed out that the person felt his review was so important that he needed to make a whole new post.  I also was highlighting that with the fact the he obviously hasn't read many other reviews here because most have been negative, and made a comment like he thought he had some maverick opinion!  And then I was commenting on how he used the word gay as a negative way of describing a large part of the film.  But, I did also say that most everything he had to say was legitimate.


So you're the one that should get off your high horse.


EDIT:
Don't think I forgot about your part in the Lady In The Water discussion where you suggested that those who liked that movie were fooling themselves, and acting blindly.  Oh, it's also the discussion where you said you wanted "some indisputable evidence as to why this film is a masterpiece", as if there is such a thing.  That's called being on a high horse.





oh my godness, are you holding some sort of grudge against me for the stuff i said about lady in the water?  why do you even remember that?  or did you go through and read my old posts after you saw this one?  it was quite a while ago!  i think that's a good place for me to say: "Man, just say whatever makes your point stronger I guess, even it it is a complete fabrication."

what's so wrong with asking for evidence as to why something is a masterpiece?  if a film is a masterpiece then there must be some features to it that the majority of the people that watch it would agree is at least done well. 

a- the fact that people use the term gay to describe things they don't like is no fault to the poster that used it, i'm sure that they weren't even thinking when they typed it.  it's a fault that is embedded in our society so unless you're out to save the world i suggest you get over it, there are plenty of worse words that people use everyday.  i would like it if you stopped making assumptions as to what i think or who i am because believe it or not, you don't know.

b- from what i've seen on this board whenever someone has a problem with anything about the movie the go to excuse that pops up seems to be "it's meant to be a b movie", so why is it such a stretch to assume that this is the way that people view it?  have you seen the way this film is advertised?  i'm sure that there are plenty of people who watch this movie and take away nothing except the gore.

c- suicide is the act of someone killing them self, depression is something you have associated with it but it doesn't have to be.  realistically looking at this film can you really say that is is not showing people killing themelves in ways that are trivial and in some cases ridiculous just to add gore?  it shows people killing themselves over and over like it's not big deal.  hey, lets have this guy feed himself to some tigers, cool!

also, i really don't see how using the word christ and gay are any different, can you please explain this to me?

d- it's true, i'm sorry for lumping everyones responses together, the truth is that i don't really remember who has what opinions about things, or anyones user names really. 

is it really so terrible for someone to not read anything else on this board and just post their opinions?

also, who are you to decide whether what i say is right or wrong in the first place?  are you christ?
OH MY GOD...i was at a placebo concert last night and i was second row standing right in front of brian...then i got steve's drumstick!  HELL YEAH!!!

okokokok

  • LITW

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 175
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2008, 07:30:45 AM »
I am totally not holding a grudge against you. I just happen to remember you very specifically from that discussion as you ignored something I said in favor of only replying in support of someone you agreed with.  What you originally said was "some indisputable evidence as to why this film is a masterpiece"  And there is no such thing. It was the "indisputable evidence" part that was the issue.  You left that part out here for some reason.  Basically, If a say I think a movie is a masterpiece, and I mean it, then to me it is a masterpiece.  There isn't any  "indisputable evidence as to why this film is a masterpiece".  If you had said "Why do you think this movie is a masterpiece" instead, then I would have no issues, as that is something totally different.   

Quote
a- the fact that people use the term gay to describe things they don't like is no fault to the poster that used it, i'm sure that they weren't even thinking when they typed it.  it's a fault that is embedded in our society so unless you're out to save the world i suggest you get over it, there are plenty of worse words that people use everyday.  i would like it if you stopped making assumptions as to what i think or who i am because believe it or not, you don't know.

You are speaking for this person, just so you know.  Also, in your speaking for this person, you said you were sure they weren't thinking....why would it matter if they were thinking or not if it isn't a big deal to use that word?  And if he wasn't thinking there,  where was he thinking and not thinking during his review? Did you mean to do that?  You are actually doing this person a huge disservice.  Just stop speaking for people while you are ahead.  So what is embedded in our society exactly?  The negative use of language towards a specific group of people?  So if something is embedded or engrained in our society, does that mean it is ok to continue doing it?  There are some horrible things that used to be embedded in our society, I don't even have to mention any examples and I am sure you know what they are.  Were those things ok because that's just the way the culture was?  That is such a ridiculous point to make.  I am not out to save the world, did you even read my response?  My point is not that using that word to describe something negatively propagates the current negative outlook towards a specific group of people in our society, which it does in my opinion.  What I was saying is that it's hard for me to completely respect the review when thats the word they used to describe a major point in the movie.   I WAS NOT OFFENDED, AND COULD CARE LESS IF IT WAS OFFENSIVE.  I WAS COMMENTING ON HOW IT PAINTS THE REVIEW AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.  THAT IS ALL.  If you can't grasp that, I don't know what to say.  Are there any words or way of describing something that someone could say or do that would make you take less stock in their opinion?  If so, then you understand what I am saying.  If not, you may still not understand. Also, what assumption did I make about you here exactly?

Quote
b- from what i've seen on this board whenever someone has a problem with anything about the movie the go to excuse that pops up seems to be "it's meant to be a b movie", so why is it such a stretch to assume that this is the way that people view it?  have you seen the way this film is advertised?  i'm sure that there are plenty of people who watch this movie and take away nothing except the gore

You did not say that people were saying  "it's meant to be a b-movie" originally.  What you said originally is that people were saying it is " just a fun b movie that isn't meant to be taken seriously"  Those are such completely different things.  DONT CHANGE WHAT YOU SAID.  You used a very specific set of words and it was those specific words that I was reacting to.  I VERY SPECIFICALLY pointed out those two specific things in my original post.  I know exactly how the film is advertised, which is why I made a post earlier about how I thought that is the biggest issue with his last 3 films.  They have been different films then advertised in my opinion, not that I expect anyone to have read that.  Which is why I have continued to reply in some of my posts about some of the things M Night has said about the movie himself, because I was hoping it might explain some of the problems people have had with the film.  Not that that information would make it a better movie for that person but maybe just to give them a different perspective.

Quote
c- suicide is the act of someone killing them self, depression is something you have associated with it but it doesn't have to be.  realistically looking at this film can you really say that is is not showing people killing themelves in ways that are trivial and in some cases ridiculous just to add gore?  it shows people killing themselves over and over like it's not big deal.  hey, lets have this guy feed himself to some tigers, cool!

My point was that this movie wasn't about the issue of suicide.  Suicide just happens to be something that happens in the movie.  Just like The Village isn't about what life is like at the turn of the century.  It just happens in the movie.  Now people killing themselves is a serious thing for sure, but so is murder, but people are cool with Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhies right?  Does that make sense?  And I don't know what the rest of your point is here?  I was not defending the aesthetic choices M Night made in this particular discussion, so what are you talking about?  However,  I think it would be trivial if people in the movie were not reacting to the deaths at all.  But that's not what happens.  That construction worker is actually crying when his co-workers start dropping I believe.  And if not, he is still pretty upset?  And the woman on the phone with her daughter is crying yes?  And the girl in the car with Julian is screaming and crying when she sees all the hanging bodies?  If they were not reacting or they were laughing, then maybe I could understand the idea of them being trivial.  I would say M Night got rather creative with the deaths, but I don't think they were trivial just because they were such wild ways of committing suicide.  My point was, originally, that movies don't have to be JUST ONE THING.  That is all.  They can mix genres.  A movie doesn't have to be just a thriller, or just a drama, or just a comedy.  Which then goes back to my original point which was that you were saying people were suggesting this was only " just a fun b movie that isn't meant to be taken seriously".


Quote
also, i really don't see how using the word christ and gay are any different, can you please explain this to me?

I wasn't using the exclamation "christ" as a way to describe something negatively.  It was an exasperated exclamation.  If I had said, "dude, the acting was so christ", and I meant the acting was bad,  then it might have been the same.  Does that make sense?  There are some people who might not feel comfortable hearing people say christ like that, but it is not an inherently loaded thing to say like describing something as a "gay" is.  I am not saying anything bad about jesus christ or a religion.  But for someone to describe something that someone thinks is bad as gay, well that is indirectly inferring that being gay is bad, even if they are not saying that directly or intently.  But again, these ideas were never my issue. 

Quote
is it really so terrible for someone to not read anything else on this board and just post their opinions?

Who said it was so terrible?  I just think there is something to be said for people who are interested in the thoughts of others, and there is something to be said for people that don't care about what others are saying , and are only concerned with saying what they wanna say.  It sounds like you disagree.  In my original response to him, all I did was let him know that I thought it was funny that he was thinking he was one of the few that thought as he did, when more reviews here were similar to his then not.  And all I did was ask why he started a new thread.  That's it.

Quote
also, who are you to decide whether what i say is right or wrong in the first place?  are you christ?

Technically, if you say 2+2=4 is wrong, can I say you were wrong without thinking I am christ? Wow.  Well that's how I was reacting because I thought you had misinterpreted things I said, which would have made you wrong in fact.  But you weren't only responding to me, so that was completely my fault.  Miscommunication.  I apologize.



DILinator

  • The Happening

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 211
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2008, 11:30:09 AM »
Lol!  More and more this place is turning into a soap opera!  Days of Our mnightfans, now coming daily!  ;D

On another note, it's nice to see you arguing with somebody other than me for a change okokokok!  ;)
"See what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky?"

I'm a "Signs" person.

okokokok

  • LITW

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 175
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2008, 05:01:01 PM »
Quote
it's nice to see you arguing with somebody other than me for a change okokokok!

Ha, I wish more people argued here.  Not for the sake of arguing, I just love the passion when people are really getting into it.  I don't know why I do it.  I think I really just want to get to the bottom of ideas, and really sort them out ya know?  Very often arguments just spiral into something other then what the actual argument is.  It happened with us a bit when we were going at it.

Mr_Glass.1

  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2942
    • Email
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2008, 11:17:36 AM »
Hopefully things won't get too out of hand here, with people arguing and all.  Things actually appear to be gettting somewhere with this thread.  I agree with okokokok, I like to argue also, sometimes to prove myself better then others, which is a bad thing, and other times just to understand my own opinion better, because I'm forced to defend it.
I see the world Lucius Hunt, just not the way you see it.


Ivy Walker to Lucius Hunt in The Village

manojrules

  • The Sixth Sense

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 34
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2008, 04:33:49 PM »
Actually, I believe his name is pronounced Shom-uh-lawn and spelled Shyamalan.

But anyways, I actually really love this movie. It had everything I expect in a Shyamalan film. Great storyline, great acting, great idea, great turns, good humor, and it made me want to watch it a million more times and still not get tired of watching it. I loved the movie, in my opinion.

the_sorcerer

  • The Village

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 121
    • Email
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2008, 05:02:34 PM »
Actually, I believe his name is pronounced Shom-uh-lawn and spelled Shyamalan.

Uh...hmm...I honestly can't tell if that was a joke or not. I sincerely hope so.
Damn! If it's gonna be that kinda party, Ima have to put ma dick in tha mashed potatas!

Sanford

  • The Avatar

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 297
    • Black Lightning
    • Email
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2008, 05:42:50 PM »
Actually, I believe his name is pronounced Shom-uh-lawn and spelled Shyamalan.

Uh...hmm...I honestly can't tell if that was a joke or not. I sincerely hope so.

Umm, that is how it's pronounced.

Rohan

  • Global Moderator
  • Futuristic (After Earth)

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2619
    • nightwriter22
Re: M. Night Shame-alan
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2008, 08:52:19 PM »
This is how you pronounce his name.

SHYAMALAN : SHIA-MA-LAAN.   SHEEAAMAALAAAN.