[Namaste]

Well, Namaste, are you now admitting that The Happening had no story?  And that it is just an abstract piece of art?  What I said was that without story, storytelling doesn't exist.  I never claimed that art doesn't exist without story. 

I already said the story could have been stronger. you didnt say art can't exist without story, but you did say cinema can't exist without story. and cinema is art. (most of the time, lol) And yes, I believe the happening is leaning toward abstract. That's the way I appreciate it anyway.

[Elijah Price]

We've all seen the amazing film making ability of Shyamalan, and we've also seen the rapid decline in the quality and the believabilty of the ficticious events that he revolves his films around.  We also all agree that most of his films are not primarily horror movies.  Clevelend Heep brought up a few very interesting and thought provoking ideas about Night's films.

Signs made you believe the Event. Unbreakable made you believe in the Event. The Village made you believe in the Event. Sixth Sense made you believe. (Lady in the Water made you believe to an extent)
The Happening made no one believe.

So what is the "remedy" so to speak for Shyamalan's movies?  That's when I came up with this idea.

I'm going to use Signs as an example for my comparison between a good piece by Shyamalan, and The Happening as a "not-so-strong" piece by him.  The event that Shyamalan describes in Signs is so well written, that he can fully explain what is going on, and at the same time, he can tell an even better story about a pastor who lost his faith.  The Happening, on the other hand, did not adequately explain the event going on in the film enough to convince the audience.  Not only did this take away from the believability of the event, but it also took away from the focus of the film: the story about Elliot and Alma.  So what do you do when you can't explain a love story and a supernatural event at the same time?  You tell a love story (or whatever) set in an event or time that everyone can understand.  So what if Shyamalan took a different direction on his films, and told a story that takes place during an earthquake, or flood, or terrorist attack, or hostage situation or something?  He wouldn't need to spend so much time explaining the event, because it's something that everyone can understand or maybe relate to.  We haven't really seen something like this from him yet. And it just may be the type of film that he needs to make in order to prove his film making abilities to skeptics who no longer believe in him. 

All I'm suggesting is that Syamalan tells his story (whether that be a love story, or a "superhero story," etc.) ouside of science fiction.  Outside of a supernatural event.

What do you guys think?

[Prince111]

But this movie was simply preposterous because unlike any other movies of his, it didn't make you BELIEVE.
Signs made you believe the Event. Unbreakable made you believe in the Event. The Village made you believe in the Event. Sixth Sense made you believe. (Lady in the Water made you believe to an extent)
The Happening made no one believe.

People laughed in the theaters I saw it in. THEY LAUGHED. That is not a good sign.

I agree 100% Cleveland, you perhaps explained it better than me.  That's what I meant by it didn't earn the "R" rating because I didn't believe the event, one HAS to believe (in alot of ways) what they're seeing, when that happens they can then completely emmerce themselves in that world, then they will feel what the film maker truly intended for them to feel.   You won't and don't get that with just images that shock you.  Look at the movies Saw and Hostel for instance, I believed every gory and shocking moment in both those movies and I feel that comparing just the gory and shocking parts in The Happening to those two movies, it just doesn't stand up to them in this era of movies.  Ok, the lions scene and the John Deer over the man scene was kind of cool, but in order for those scenes to have had been more effective, the camera should have been inside the lawnmachine so that the audience could see the blades contacting with the man, and for the lion scene, looking back at the night scene in Signs when Mel Gibson's character was trying to feed his dog and it made a jump cut to his dog jumping up trying to attack him, if that had happened with the lion scene it would have been more effective in my opinion.  Now, this is just a theory.   I could be wrong, it's just what I believe could have made the "not safe (as M. Night put it), or gory/shocking element help in making people believe those componants of the movie.   

[Mr_Glass.1]

Yeah, it definately wasn't shocking, which took away some of the scare.  I think another reason why people didn't like it as much was the overt environmental message, I think it annoyed some people, and the scene at the end on the TV with the newscaster and the scientist, really messed with the momentum also.  I agree with Elijah Price though that Night should do something in a major catastrophe that's real, and then you can explore the characters more.  Or delve into how people react in times of stress, such as the people that boarded themselves into the house.  I felt those were the best death scenes, the opening scenes of people killing themselves with the hairpin and the jumping off the buildings, then the two boys getting shot.

[Namaste]

It's true, Shyamalan hasnt set his stories in any realistic events, yet. BUt that doesnt mean they aren't believeable or identifiable, because they are MOSTLY stock scenarios established by many fiction writers in the past. He just takes a different angle on them. Was it new to anyone that ghosts stick around because of unfinished business? or that super heroes always have a super weakness? or that woods monsters have long claws? No, because we've seen it done before, even though it's not real.

[Elijah Price]

I'll have to agree with you, Namaste.  Shyamalan takes "B" movie ideas and turns them into something phenominal.  Everyone has heard of ghosts hanging out for unfinished buisness and superheroes with super weaknesses.  But is it just me, or have you never heard of plants spontaneously releasing a chemical that causes people to comit suicide?  That was a new one...

[Prince111]

It's true, Shyamalan hasnt set his stories in any realistic events, yet. BUt that doesnt mean they aren't believeable or identifiable, because they are MOSTLY stock scenarios established by many fiction writers in the past. He just takes a different angle on them. Was it new to anyone that ghosts stick around because of unfinished business? or that super heroes always have a super weakness? or that woods monsters have long claws? No, because we've seen it done before, even though it's not real.

Yeah, but it's the poorly execution of it all that didn't make it real.  It has nothing to do with how many other directors or other stories like it or if it's based on real events, (although I'll have to agree with Mr. Glass in that the scene with the TV newscaster and the scientist messed with the momentum), it's all about execution.  The execution is what makes you believe anything in movies, especially if it's not a real event.

The best death scene in that whole movie like Mr. Glass said was the two boys getting shot.  That scene was crazy as hell.

[Cleveland Heep]

I agree.

And if I had to summarize the entirety of this conversation into one sentence it would be this:


"The Happening - a film with as much potential as Signs - is - against all our best wishes and hopes- a poorly executed film and from an OBJECTIVE perspective, a bad film."


THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE TECHNICALITIES. TECHNICALLY, THE MOVIE WAS SPOT ON. IM JUST TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE Story.

I also agree with Elijah Price when he says the Happening tried to focus too hard on the Event itself - which it failed in doing - rather than the real story: the love story. I think it would be very interesting to see Shyamalan put us into a situation without a need for an explanation again.

[Namaste]

"The Happening - a film with as much potential as Signs - is - against all our best wishes and hopes- a poorly executed film and from an OBJECTIVE perspective, a bad film."

THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE TECHNICALITIES. TECHNICALLY, THE MOVIE WAS SPOT ON. IM JUST TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE Story.

so..its NOT objectively bad, but SUBJECTIVELY bad..

[Mr_Glass.1]

Aren't all movies subjected to everyones personal opinion about whether it was good or bad.  Also, one other thing that affected people, and made them not like it was it evironmentalist attitude.  It did appear somewhat heavy-handed, somewhat like Wall-E (which I have not seen, just heard a lot about).  I liked the original script where it was never fully explained, it was more of a Happening.

[Cleveland Heep]

I completely disagree.

The Environmental Warning Only Came at the End on the TV.


People hated the movie way before that.

[Namaste]

actually the environmentalist aspect was all throughout the film if you even half pay attention..i got it my first time through.

[Elijah Price]

Wow, Namaste!  You caught it the first time through?!  Well, aren't you just the cat's meow...

Mr. Glass plus others: The "environmentalist aspect" of the movie wasn't Shyamalan's one and only hope of making The Happening a good movie.  It wasn't like "the wild card" that determined whether or not people would have liked it.  And Andrew Stanton wrote Wall-E before global warming was being talked about on a large scale...

[Mr_Glass.1]

Hey guys, calm down, otherwise this thread will get locked.  Elijah Price, I didn't say Night was using the environmental aspect as his only hope for a good movie, it was just one of the things that was in the film and may have helped toward the overall effect of people considering it a bad movie.  I know all about Andrew Stanton and Wall-E being written before global warming was talked about on a wide scale, the thing is though, popular opinion of people who hadn't seen it was like, "Hey, wasn't that movie just about humans trashing the planet and evrionmentalism and all that stuff."  I feel like people just don't want to see that in movies.

[Elijah Price]

Yeah, I got a bit carried away with the whole "environmentalist aspect" bash.  I guess I'm just getting tired of us trying to find different and new excuses to be able to call The Happening a good movie.

Also, I haven't really heard alot of people talking about the environment part of the film.  I haven't read it in reviews, brought it up in debates/discussions, and haven't heard alot of people talking about it who saw the movie.  Is it really a big deal?  Like are people bringing it up alot when you guys talk about it?