[okokokok]

DILinator, I appreciate what you are saying.  My issues have never been about people not liking this movie, as I can understand many grievances people have with it, even if I don't agree with them. My biggest issue is with people not accepting that others could like this movie and then them seemingly trying to debunk that anyone could like this movie.  I do think that you not liking fantasy films as a genre is a huge factor in your opinion.  It doesn't make your opinion any less valid of course, but it always makes it more difficult to enjoy a movie, no matter how well it's made, if you don't like the genre. 

So that again goes back to personal preference, and I don't happen to like movies where we're supposed to accept things like kids reading prophecies off of cereal boxes.  That just doesn't wash in my book.  I must say as well, that I've haven't talked to anybody I know, who liked the movie either, and it didn't do too well at the box office, so clearly my take on the movie was not in the minority.

 

I don't know why this matters.  To say you don't like to accept this means you don't like to accept anything that is fantastical in any movie based in reality right?  Because the cereal box idea does fit into this story.  It's not anymore insane or expectful of M Night to have you accept a narf or an eatlon, right?  And that people you know didn't like this movie has no bearing I think, unless you are saying they disliked it for the same reasons maybe, because it is already well know that LITW did horribly at the box office and the majority of who saw it didn't like it.  I only know 5 people that saw this movie personally, and 2 liked it, and 3 loved it nearly as much as I, but where does that get us.  We know how the movie was generally accepted.

It's no Signs or The Sixth Sense, but not every director hits it out of the park every time.

Of course it couldn't have been, you don't like the fantasy film as a genre so how could you ever really like it in that way?  It seams he could never hit it out of the park with you in making a fantasy film.  Unless of course hitting it out of the park is only possible with critical success.  I wouldn't expect you to ever like it on multiple viewings because you stated, if I am understanding correctly, that you don't like that you are "supposed to accept things like kids reading prophecies off of cereal boxes".  Those story elements are not going to change.  It would be different if you didn't like the story structure or the pacing(and maybe you don't) because those are opinions that can change and hit you different with multiple viewings.  Does that make sense?

[Mr_Glass.1]

I think it makes sense okokokok.  We each have our own genre of ilm that we like.  Yes, some people just don't accept that other people could like, or in some cases dislike, Lady In The Water.  Some people can take a little fantasy, like DILinator, but not a lot, hence pushing him over the edge with the cereal box reading.  He might like it when he watches it again, or be like my brother, who say The Fountain with me and never like it no matter how many times he watches it again.  Still, some people I have talked said Lady In The Water grew on them the more times they watched it.  Slightly off topic DILinator, I am in 12th grade, and have been homeschooled for all my life, I really like it.

[DILinator]

I guess my point about not being in the minority, is that while I can accept people liking the film, and everybody is entitled to their own personal preferences, I think the fact that a lot of people didn't like it, and not all for the same reasons as me is proof that it's not as strong of a movie as the others. 

Thing is, a lot of people didn't care for The Village either, and I loved it.  But the story meant something a little more to me, as I have experienced being in an environment with a "Village" mentality.  I am willing to condede, even though I really like it personally, that the movie was not as good as Signs, or even The Sixth Sense thematically. 

Being popular at the box office doesn't inherently mean it's a better movie than one that isn't.  There are a lot of factors that go into how well a movie fares at the box office.  However, it shows how accessible a movie is, and I think that is important.  While I can appreciate some "unique" films, and Shyamalan is good at making them, the fact that many of the viewers do not understand them is an indictment on the filmmaker, and in the end, the movie itself. 

It's like if I made up a language, and then spoke to you in it.  Some people would be facinated by the fact I made up a language, would accept it, and would delve into becoming a part of it and understanding it more.  We've seen things like this involving Klingon and Elvish.  However, the majority of you would not "get it", and would think it was senseless gibberish, and not a real language.  You would not accept that I had just made a "real" new language.  You would probably think me rather silly, as you should.  That's how LITW is to the majority of people.  It's not an easilly accessible movie, and it creates an entire world that doesn't exist, and doesn't fit into any known construct.  It's not a fantasy movie, because it focuses on normal, everyday people.  But yet it's clearly not real life, because narfs, and eatelons don't exist, and little kids don't read cereal boxes like prophetic newspapers.  Therefore, in order to accept and enjoy the movie, you have to buy into the "new language" that M.Night has created here.  Some of you have, and that's fine.  But the fact that many, including myself haven't, merely means we are not going to accept a new "made up language" as being legitimate storytelling. 

LITW is a great work of creativity on the part of Shyamalan, and I hand it to him for that.  It just wasn't meant for mass consumption, and I think deep down he knew it would not do well.  That's one of the reasons for the critic character in the film, because he knew they already were doubting him after The Village, and he knew they'd tear this film apart.  He doesn't care though, and threw it in their faces in fact with this movie, and the film critic character.  I love that aspect of the movie, as "film critics" opinions often aren't worth the paper they're written on!  M.Night is still my man, and people who like LITW are fine in my book.  I'll just never accept that those of us who dislike the film are somehow missing something, or wrong in our assessment of the movie as a stretch of credulity.  Sorry.   

I'll still play with you guys if you'll still play with me though!     

[Mr_Glass.1]

See, I honestly think some people don't get Night's movies.  Others don't like them, and still other like, or in my case love them.  I really like Lady In The Water, it had an affect on me with the cinematography, the technical aspects of the film.  Yes, the story is far fetched, but that's what I like about it, it was a FAIRY TALE, people will go see enchanted and say, "oh, it's really good."  WHAT, cartoons coming to life, people running around New York City in medieval clothes and singing, bad witches.  People still love that.  As a movie Lady In The Water might be his worst, but I still think it is really good.  I think in America we've started to give up on the fantastical, and the incredulous, not that that is an entirely bad thing but we just don't accept it in life as much anymore.  I think in Asia it is much more commonplace, where people are more superstitious, in Lady In The Water there was a lot of Buddhism (is that the right religion) mixed in with the story.  That's what I thought.

[DILinator]

There's something else that sets LITW apart from even normal characterization though, and accessibility, and honestly, I can't put my finger on it.  You mention Enchanted, which I liked a lot, and yet I didn't like LITW at all.  You look at fairy tales, and I think of a recent movie I saw on video, Stardust.  Wasn't a big fan of the movie, as that's just not my thing.  But I still liked it better than LITW.  Like I said, I can't put my finger on it, but there was just something about LITW that just didn't play with me, and with a lot of people.  It's certainly not a dislike of Shyamalan, as he's my fav!  But there was something about it, and it suffered in my opinion as a result.   

[Mr_Glass.1]

See, I'm the reverse.  There's something about Lady In The Water that I like, which I can't put my finger on.  It makes sense what you said DILinator.

[DILinator]

I asked my wife about this earlier, to see if you could help me put my finger on it any better, and the main thing she pointed out was the "throwaway characters".  I really agreed, and I think this is especially surprising coming from Shyamalan, who is known for creating strong characters, and making character-driven movies.  The problem with LITW though, is that he created a story driven movie, and inserted these often-times strange and bizzare characters into the framework.  While I can see how he felt he was continuing in his character-driven tradition, the problem lies within characters who the viewer (at least my wife and I, and obviously numerous other) does not ever really feel a connection with.  There are so many at first, and then they try to get you invested in one group, only to then pull a switcheroo and tell you it's the other group.  All that to again agree with my wife about a chief problem being the characters.  Story and Cleveland Heep were not the problems in this movie.  They were both great.  But when M.Night tried to do too much with too many different characters, that's when things fell apart.  At least that's how I see it.

[okokokok]

DILinator, agree a lot with what you said a few post back.  We are not far apart in thinking in my opinion in that we agree that our opinions about the movie aren't incorrect.  Some thoughts though:
 

It's not a fantasy movie, because it focuses on normal, everyday people.  But yet it's clearly not real life, because narfs, and eatelons don't exist, and little kids don't read cereal boxes like prophetic newspapers.  Therefore, in order to accept and enjoy the movie, you have to buy into the "new language" that M.Night has created here.  Some of you have, and that's fine.  But the fact that many, including myself haven't, merely means we are not going to accept a new "made up language" as being legitimate storytelling.

This is a fantasy film.  It is is not ONLY a fantasy film, but it is a fantasy film.  Show me where it says that the fantasy genre can't focus on real people.  You seem to be stressing that you don't like the specifics about the movie when it is clear you have a general dislike for fantasy, as it seems to be the only thing that you have been specific about.  It looks to me like you only have an issue with the subject matter, as a opposed to the movie itself.  According to what you have written, a movie could never be considered "legitimate storytelling", or good, if it had things like narfs and eatlons or whatever fantasy element you want to put in there.  It sounds mildly elitist.  It's like you are using the fact that the majority don't like this movie to justify your lack of interest in fantasy.

LITW is a great work of creativity on the part of Shyamalan, and I hand it to him for that.  It just wasn't meant for mass consumption, and I think deep down he knew it would not do well.  That's one of the reasons for the critic character in the film, because he knew they already were doubting him after The Village, and he knew they'd tear this film apart.  He doesn't care though, and threw it in their faces in fact with this movie, and the film critic character.  I love that aspect of the movie, as "film critics" opinions often aren't worth the paper they're written on!  M.Night is still my man, and people who like LITW are fine in my book.  I'll just never accept that those of us who dislike the film are somehow missing something, or wrong in our assessment of the movie as a stretch of credulity.  Sorry.

Firstly, I agree that you should never accept the idea that because you don't like the film you "don't get it".  That is a complete cop out to tell someone that's why they don't like a movie, or any art for that matter.

Secondly, you are starting to speak for people here.  You don't know that this is why he created the critic, though you are not alone in that theory.  It's one of the more popular ones I have heard.  But you state it like it's fact.  I have written this already, but is awfully common in stories to kill off a character who represents a negative idea or theme.  Example, in the book JAWS (not the movie, though I will reference the movie actors for clarity), Richard Dreyfuss' character sleeps with Roy Schieders wife.  Dreyfuss' character dies in the book.  The author said he killed him off basically because the character represented adultery.  It's the idea the character represents that dies.  I respect M Night too much as a filmmaker to think he would cook up this character, who is integral to the story, to be killed just in case the critics didn't like the movie.

While I can see how he felt he was continuing in his character-driven tradition, the problem lies within characters who the viewer (at least my wife and I, and obviously numerous other) does not ever really feel a connection with.  There are so many at first, and then they try to get you invested in one group, only to then pull a switcheroo and tell you it's the other group.

Underdeveloped characters is a legitimate grievance.  I think that is the first specific thing you have said about not liking this movie that I have no problem with, even if I disagree.  That absolutely is a reason to think a movie is not good in my opinion.  However, you state it like it is the main problem most had with this film.  If you haven't noticed, I really don't mind when people don't like this movie, but I do mind the way people discuss their thoughts on a movie.  Until this point, the only real problem you seemed to have was with the fantasy elements.  And I can't stand to hear someone say this movie that I think is so amazing in so many ways, is not "legitimate storytelling" basically because it is a fantasy film.  And then to have that opinion be justified mostly on the legs of the majority not liking the film. 

In the end, how do you explain movies like 2001 and BladeRunner?  They were critically panned, and didn't connect with the majority of audiences.  So are they misses?  I am in no way comparing these 3 films, but rather how they were accepted on first release.  Of course, it's much easier to say positive things about BladeRunner and 2001 in retrospect considering the stature they have gained.  I am also not suggesting that LITW will be accepted any differently someday in the future than it is now.  Your post makes this topic even more interesting.  What the majority thinks of a movie seems to be the ultimate judge of a films credibility, which is why BladeRunner and 2001 are such perfect examples.

[Vick]

It's my Favorite Shyamalans's movie #2, when i look it in movie theater the surrounding reality  for me did not exist , I was  like in movie , this effect was only when i look The Village too, for music. The Last words:
"Thank you for you for saving my life"  - it genius

[Mr_Glass.1]

I agree with what okokokok says, even though I like Lady In The Water, his points are well made and thought out.  Films come down to what people like, but then some movies, even if disliked, are still well made, and deserve critical acclaim.  Others, though, are incredibly popular with the masses and are still good.  I think Lady In The Water was well made, even though most people didn't like it, I did, but you can't bash a film just because you didn't like the genre.  You can dislike a film, and maybe even bash it, but not an indiviual genre because you are already predetermined that you will not like it.

[DILinator]

Ok, a few things need to be pointed out here, based on the past few posts....

First off, while I've admitted I'm not a big fan of the Fantasy genre, that doesn't mean there aren't movies in that genre that I have still liked... such as the LOTR movies (it just took a while).  Also, this being related to the fantay genre has not prejudiced me against the movie.  I gave it a fair shot, and it came up wanting in my opinion. 

The problem here is that it seems you want to discount a person's emotional reaction to a film based simply off of the watching experience as invalid without a "proper" argument to back up why.  Nobody who dislikes LITW has to explain or justify their beliefs if they simply watched it, tried to like it, and came away feeling like they wasted their time.  Now some of the "haters" simply disliked it, and other M.Night movies because they were his movies.  That's not an acceptable reason.  But if somebody gave it a fair shot, as I did, and came away unimpressed, I don't really need to enumerate a bunch of reasons why I didn't like it.  The result of watching the film was dislike, and that's sufficient. 

However, I've tried to explore my feelings further, and provide some reasons for why it probably did not "work" for me, and that's where things like character development and bizzare plot points come in.  I don't feel the need to "back up" my dislike for dislike for the movie with a bunch of reasons though, because the bottom line is at the movie of the movie it left an unfavorable impression.  That's not my fault, that's the films.  It's not a sin to dislike a movie, even a Shyamalan movie (with the exception of Signs!  )

As for the whole populous approach to movie appraisal, I'm not saying that it's the only criterion to determine whether a movie is good or not.  However, I am saying that if you show a movie to 10 people, and 7 of them hate a movie, 1 thinks it's ok, 1 likes it, and 1 loves it, that the filmmaker probably didn't do a very good job, since the point (in my opinion) of making movies is to provide enjoyment for the viewers.  If I was the person showing the above film, I would have to humble myself, and realize that even though there were some people who did not hate the film, the great majority did, and that indicates a failure on my part.  Now there are certainly movies that are good that may not be popular, and movies that are popular that may not be good.  In my opinion, what is even "good" is really subjective to each viewer's personal taste.  So I'm not going to say LITW is a "bad movie" for everybody, because obviously some of you like it.  However, given the fact that the vast majority of people agree with my opinion on the movie, the onus to prove this opinion isn't on me, or anybody agreeing with me, but on everyone else who actually liked the movie.  Clearly, the movie had some deficiencies, otherwise so many people, including many Shyamalan fans (of which I know many), would not dislike the film.  I can accept that you like, or even love the film.  But you need to accept that myself, and those like me who disliked the film, are not wrong in our opinions, and are not "missing" anything.  And, that we don't need to justify that opinion to others who disagree in order for it to be an accurate and valid opinion. 

Regarding the critic character, I was simply stating that the character was representative of people that Shyamalan had already taken a dislike to, as they had him.  I'm a writer, and I know that we write from our own personal experience.  If Shyamalan had rosy relations with the critics, don't think he would have created the only negative character in his movie, and the only character who died, as a movie critic.  I highly doubt in the bedtime story he told to the kids before it evolved into this movie, that there was even a movie critic character.  That character was added to make a statement, and honestly, I agree with the statement.  Killing off the movie critic was arguably the best part of the movie! 

As for what classifies as "legitimate storytelling", I guess that's up for debate.  Far be it from me to pontificate that my opinion on the matter is the only valid one.  Pointing out that my opinion is in the majority though does lend credence to it's veracity, as it's far more likely that the majority is right about the movie, then that they are wrong.  That's just simple logistics.  But again, I am a firm believer in movies being subjective in nature, and thereby open to differing opinions, which aren't really "wrong" in and of themselves. 

[Mr_Glass.1]

Allright, that's cool, I understand and agree with most of what you said.  You didn't like Lady In The Water, I did, we differ, that's allright.  Sorry about assuming that you didn't give Lady In The Water a chance.

[okokokok]

In response to DILanator  ( It's long so I don't wish it upon any to have to read this ridiculous post, but I hope you do DILanator because I'd like you to understand what I am saying.

The problem here is that it seems you want to discount a person's emotional reaction to a film based simply off of the watching experience as invalid without a "proper" argument to back up why.  Nobody who dislikes LITW has to explain or justify their beliefs if they simply watched it, tried to like it, and came away feeling like they wasted their time.

However, I've tried to explore my feelings further, and provide some reasons for why it probably did not "work" for me, and that's where things like character development and bizzare plot points come in.  I don't feel the need to "back up" my dislike for dislike for the movie with a bunch of reasons though, because the bottom line is at the movie of the movie it left an unfavorable impression.  That's not my fault, that's the films.  It's not a sin to dislike a movie, even a Shyamalan movie (with the exception of Signs!  Wink )"

How many times must I stress I don't mind if people don't like this movie?  I must be doing a horrible job of expressing that!

If we are to be discussing a movie in such a thought provocative manner, I feel YOU do need to have more specific reasons.  If you had come in and said "This movie is lame" and that's it, I wouldn't expect much from that person as far specifics about why they don't like the movie.  I probably wouldn't care.  But you have come in here apparently seeking to have a thoughtful discussion on this movie (which I like whether you hate the movie or not) and have made some bold statements about the quality of this film.  So I don't think I can be blamed for expecting someone to make more specific points then you have made, considering the manner and subject of your posts.  Now if you just wanted to come in and make these bold claims and not discuss the movie, ok then.  But it seems like you wanted to discuss them.

I did acknowledge your character developement issue, so that we are clear.  Not because it was valid, but because it was an actual point.  My point was, the overwhelming majority of you complaints in your initial few posts seem to stem from your lack of interest in the genre (example follows), and the only example of your interest in the genre comes from the most universally praised and accepted film(s) of the genre.  Also, you weren't just discussing your response to the film, you were then talking about all the other people who didn't like it either, which shouldn't have anything to do with your "emotional response" to the film. 

So that again goes back to personal preference, and I don't happen to like movies where we're supposed to accept things like kids reading prophecies off of cereal boxes.  That just doesn't wash in my book.  I must say as well, that I've haven't talked to anybody I know, who liked the movie either, and it didn't do too well at the box office, so clearly my take on the movie was not in the minority.

 

Regarding the critic character, I was simply stating that the character was representative of people that Shyamalan had already taken a dislike to, as they had him.  I'm a writer, and I know that we write from our own personal experience.  If Shyamalan had rosy relations with the critics, don't think he would have created the only negative character in his movie, and the only character who died, as a movie critic.  I highly doubt in the bedtime story he told to the kids before it evolved into this movie, that there was even a movie critic character.  That character was added to make a statement, and honestly, I agree with the statement.  Killing off the movie critic was arguably the best part of the movie!  Grin

(All that really matters in this next paragraph is my first sentence)
My issue was only with you suggesting, in a FACTUAL manner, that he PARTIALLY did it because he thought critics would hate THIS movie.  I absolutely agree that he was making a statement with that character, and that it probably does have roots in the fact that critics have given him a hard time in the PAST.  But I don't think that is the sole purpose, and not even the main purpose.  I think, though I am not sure, that the character first and foremost is some one that is to lead people astray.  In this movie, it would be people led astray from their true calling.   He is integral to what happens in the movie.  A major theme in the film, just as it is in unbreakable, is becoming who you are...finding your place in the world, despite what people are telling you about yourself.  It's not like he introduced a character as a film critic, and the next time you see him he dies or something.  That would be quite different to me.   I am also a writer and filmmaker, and it's intersting that we state that fact as a something that somehow backs up our opinion, yet our opinion is different!

However, given the fact that the vast majority of people agree with my opinion on the movie, the onus to prove this opinion isn't on me, or anybody agreeing with me, but on everyone else who actually liked the movie.  Clearly, the movie had some deficiencies, otherwise so many people, including many Shyamalan fans (of which I know many), would not dislike the film.  I can accept that you like, or even love the film.  But you need to accept that myself, and those like me who disliked the film, are not wrong in our opinions, and are not "missing" anything.  And, that we don't need to justify that opinion to others who disagree in order for it to be an accurate and valid opinion.

Firstly, I never said the movie didn't have defincies.  Don't confuse me with someone who thinks there has ever been a perfect movie made (besides Raiders of the Lost Ark that is).  This goes back to an original point.  You don't have to prove your opinion at all.  But It seems as though you wanted to discuss this movie and you made some bold claims, so I was under the impression you would want  to elaborate more specifically than I thought you originally had.  Did I misread that? You absolutely don't need to justify your opinion, I just got the impression you wanted to discuss your comments with more than just the fact that, like you, the majority doesn't like it, and that you don't like almost any fantasy films, with the exception of the most popular and critically acclaimed of all time.  Of course, I acknowledge that you eventually gave some real examples of things that you think are poorly done, and I can't argue with what you said.  Not because they were valid points or anything like that, but because the DISCUSSION became valid because it wasn't just someone not liking fantasy as a genre.   I can argue that I think the things you were saying about the film in earlier posts were annoying because you literally were only commenting on the fantasy aspects while noting you thought this was not "legitimate storytelling".  Please see that's what I am arguing.  Look at your first few posts.  I am the last person who would ever think there that someone is correct or incorrect in their appraisal of a piece of art. 

You still didn't answer my BladeRunner and 2001 question.  But, according to what you have written in the past, we should know that you would have considered those movies failures and misses, up until the acclaim started years or decades later. 

Also, please don't lump multiple peoples opinions or posts together as though they are coming from the  same person.  I think it discredits both me and Mr. Glass when you respond as though we are saying the same thing, which we aren't.  I am most specifically talking about the idea of not liking something because "you don't get it", which you and I COMPLETELY agree on.

[Mr_Glass.1]

Yes, if you have specific questions, or dislikes about Lady In The Water I would love to answer them.

[DILinator]

okokokok, I think we're passing each other like ships in the night, because I feel like I've made my points, made them clear, given rationale, and justified everything I've said multiple times in my posts here.  So I'm not sure what more you're looking for from me, and maybe not anything.  We can agree to disagree about the film.  You read what I write and don't see it.  I read what you write, and don't see it.  So there we are.  I don't need to prove my point to believe that how I feel is right, and I'm sure you feel the same way.  So I guess we should just leave it at that. 

One thing though:  I don't feel I've made bold statements, if the majority of people agree with me.  I think the bold statements are made by people supporting a movie that the vast majority of viewers didn't like.  That's always been my point.  If you can accept you're part of the fringe group that liked LITW, then that's great.  I acknowledge anybody is entitled to watch any film, and some films speak to some more than others.  I know that The Village certainly meant more to me than some people, as it was not a terribly popular movie, but it meant something special to me. 

As for 2001 and Blade Runner, I don't care for either movie, and don't know hardly anybody who does either.  If they were panned when they came out it was for good reason!  If they've come to acclaim in more recent years, it's due to the trending of critics to like artsy fartsty stuff for lack of a better word.  These are probably the same people who think No Country for Old Men is actually a good movie in it's resolution.  I'm sorry if you like those films, but again we'll have to disagree there. 

I am not one who is "into" arguing or debating online, so I'm pretty much done with this thread.  I've stated my case, stated it pretty well in my opinon, and now will focus on the rest of the M.Night universe that we agree on, rather than the one movie we don't.  I do think I'll give LITW another shot sometime, just out of respect to Shyamalan, and to make sure I'm not missing something.  I hope that this can be an amicable conclusion to the matter, as I'm not looking to pick fights or make enemies right off the bat here.  See you elsewhere on the forums!