Chefelf.com Night Life: Hoth - Viewing Profile

I have no idea where you get the "I'm so above this tactic" from...as a matter of fact I don't understand where you get alot of the stuff you do...oh well you win...I'm above this...and as far as the me telling you to basically "shut up because you're so so tired of it"...I don't see where I said that either...I did say "It is really just a matter of personal opinion so let's just leave it at that" and "let's just leave this as we disagree, this is getting old"...nowhere did I ask you to "shut up"...actually what I was asking was to let's just agree that we disagree...I would think most grown adults could understand that concept but apparently not you...oh well you win again...I asked you to "shut up"...happy?



Man talk about hitting a nerve, you just really seem to be annoyed by this idea that someone might actually like Shyamalan's films...I'll repeat myself again, "One thing is for sure, you would be hard-pressed to find a director who can scare so much while using so little." Didn't think I would have to post that three times but hey...what I'm referring to there is a little thing called "suspense". There is a big difference between someone being scared by a monster jumping out of the closet, and a person being scared by a monster NOT jumping out of the closet...this is something I feel Shyamalan does extremely well. Suspense does not necessarily fall into the "horror" category...but as far as suspense goes, as I said before (yawn) I never said he's the first to do it, not the last, nor the greatest to ever do it...but you saying I think he's the greatest "horror" director ever is..I don't know...again you win whatever you say...



No they don't...but again this is a matter of personal taste...which is actually why I said let's just agree to disagree...or as you put it...I told you to shut up...



Actually saying that I said none of your points had any validity is not true...we both agree that LITW and THE HAPPENING sucked big-time...we also agree that Hitchcock was a great director...so there we do agree on some things!!!



I' m not backpedalling on anything, as I stated in my last post if I was probably unclear on anything it was how bad I think/agree his movies have gotten (so I guess this would include his abilities as a writer/director have taken a dive as well). So if you want to call me out for being unclear on one point since you obviously have to be told your right then fine I will give you that...yes I have sung his praises throughout my posts...and for good reason...his first few movies, while if not awesome, at least deserved serious consideration. Any repetition here has derived from you looking too deep into, or simply misquoting me, for God knows what reason...and then me feeling the need to "clarify" myself because of it...



I think this is where the real issue lies here...

You have mentioned a few times throughout this conversation something along the lines of how you have "seen these tactics before 10000 times", or something like that, in referring to my posts. And how your "use to them" and "know the usual retorts", da da da da da...like you feel the need to let me know how smart you are or something. You are correct, you created this thread criticizing a truly awful movie THE HAPPENING (which ironically I totally agree with, for albeit different reasons) and I came in and did not agree with some of your viewpoints concerning a certain director. And ever since my first post this thread has pretty much been nothing but me and you bickering back and forth about our opinions or your take on my opinions or who said what or whaterver...which is exactly why I said let's just "leave this as we disagree"...if you don't want someone to disagree with you, then don't post an open thread where anyone can share there opinions...

This is so tedious it's almost not worth it at this point, but for "points' sake...hey!!! No pun intended...since you seem to like to quote me without really quoting me (otherwise known as misquoting) I have taken it upon myself to go back through this post and accurately "quote" myself where necessary....



You' re exactly right I did...but the point you "belabored" was that I denied saying that, when I never did. I did deny saying they were good that's true...again my exact words were "I seriously doubt he would have been able to do that if his drafts were really that bad." I admittedly (like you) have never read one, so it is possible that I could be wrong...however the bottom line is here you think the dialogue in his movies is awful, thus the screenplays must be awful. I do not think the dialogue in his movies is awful, so I don't see how his screenplays can be that awful. It is really just a matter of personal opinion so let's just leave it at that...



Yes you would be correct when it comes to the entire film industry as a whole I will give you that. I was actually referring to the big "blockbusters", that seem to garner most of the attention and in which case this is true. Wait, is this clarifying...?



I feel the need to accurately quote myself here. What I actually said was "One thing is for sure, you would be hard-pressed to find a director who can scare so much while using so little." I never said he was the first to ever do it, nor the last, nor the greatest of all time...but if you want to take it that way hey, more power to ya'...



It' s not really unclear where I said he turned to...ummm...shit. Again I will go back to my previous trusty posts and accurately quote myself. What I said was "I agree with most people that Shyamalan's movies have slowly (or quickly depending on your point of view) been taking a dive lately. I however don't agree that it took place before the Village. I do believe that "Signs" was his best movie, followed by the criminally underrated "Unbreakable" and then probably "The Village", which was disappointing but I don't think was nearly as bad as most people think." So there you have it, it's not unclear where I think his movies started to take a dive, all you had to do is actually read my post.

As far as saying he is the "foremost living director" or the "second-greatest horror director of all time"? I couldn't find myself saying that anywhere in my posts, so I can't quote myself there...I probably should have been more clear though as to how bad I think/agree his movies have gotten. LITW and THE HAPPENING are really two of the worst movies I have seen in the last four years or so, so I don't know if I can still say he is great at suspense. Let me just say though that the ability, for my part anyways, I believe is still there...and I hope he gets back to it soon.

let's just leave this as we disagree, this is getting old.

Ok I've been out of touch for a while, but I"m back and I just had to respond to this, if anyone still cares...



I said that his screenplays cannot be that bad because of the actors who took up his projects. Yes I said that...I cannot deny this, but I am wondering why you felt it so important to belabor that point when I once never denied it? I did not say his screenplays were world-beaters, but Shymalan's movies are not the typical over-CGI'd crap hollywood is putting out nowadays...his stories are original whether or not you like the "dialogue" or "writing" or not. People can relate to the dialogue in his movies, I just don't see the "bad writing" or "bad dialogue" viewpoint, I think it's ridiculous. You're just another person who overthinks one aspect of a movie (like acting or dialogue) and anyone who doesn't see your amazing "insight" is apparently below you. Shyamalan's dialogue may be simple or "campy" at times, but I definately don't find it insultingly bad...well maybe in his last two movies, but not prior to that.



I never said this was unique, just something he does well. I'll tell you what is unique though, how many times you put words in my mouth.



I like you didn't think THE RING was scary, nor do I know anyone who referred to it as scary, but to every man his own. I never saw THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, and don't really care to. As far as the THE SIXTH SENSE showing much more than THE RING or THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT? Not really sure I see that one...if you want to just choose ONE or TWO other movies to compare ONE of Shymalan's movies to to show "how much more Shyamalan" shows than other directors, it's a weak argument. I could just as easily pick one or two horror/suspense movie out the great big hat of terrible/mediocre horror/suspense movies to show how Shyamalan shows less...certainly you can do better than that. I find it funny that you chose one of his movies that "arguably" shows more than any other movie he made to make that argument.



Just don't agree with this statement...Wes Craven shows less? I must admit I'm not a Wes Craven junkie but from what I know about the movies of his that I have seen, that statement's a joke. As far as what Shyamalan does being "handled better by a lot of other filmmakers" I can only think of one other filmmaker where this would be true...the afforementioned Hitchcock. Aside from him, this statement is also ludicrous.



If you read my previous post on this subject I think I have agreed that his movies have "generally" gotten worse. Why are you again trying to prove a point I've already stated and obviously agree with? I think the issue in question was whether or not people actually like Shyamalan, rather than whether or not his movies have gradually gotten worse.



The last movie of his that scared me was The Village, that was before I found out the monsters weren't real.



COULD NOT agree more. I liken this to how many times I have heard a director refer to someone getting physically hurt in a comedy as funny material. That always drives me nuts when I hear that, because it's not just someone getting hurt that's funny...it's the situation, the character of the individual(s) involved, the events leading up to said moment...etc...and it takes time and effort to come up with those situations, or to put the right people in them...so I don't disagree with your argument in this sense...I just don't know how anyone can say Shyamalan doesn't put people (should I say use to put people) in scary situations, or utilize suspense well.

The actor, I don't care how good, cannot make up for a bad screenplay...they could have had the best actor in the world play Wahlberg's part in The Happening and it wouldn't have made a difference...why? Because the premise was as stupid as can be. Have there been bad movies that resulted from seemingly good screenplays? Of course...probably more than can be numbered. The point is, the draft or screenplay is not always an accurate indicator as to how good the movie will be. Just like in novels, they don't always translate to the big screen well, for a host of various reasons that I won't get into here.



That' s just ridiculous. I said what I meant and meant what I said. Don't try and turn it into something it's not to make yourself sound more intelligent.



What the hell else is he suppose to use? There isn't a horror/suspense film ever made that doesn't use one or all of these to some effect. There's a reason this is the case, THEY WORK. The fact is that Shyamalan uses them to great effect better than any other (living, better clarify this for you) director I know of. What I meant (oh no I'm clarifying again) is that he produces great suspense by showing little of the monster/alien/antagonist in question, and he does it extremely well.



I will actually agree with your sentence here. This is a matter of personal taste.



I would love to see proof of this. I'll bet you don't have any. Because I know a lot of people who do (at least before his last two movies). Maybe most of the people you have talked to don't, but not most of the people I know.



Again a matter of personal opinion and I think it's funny how you say it's a matter of opinion and then rattle yours off like it's fact. I have never read one of his screenplays (I am assuming you have) and I don't really care to or have to. Why would I give a crap? The only thing I care about is the finish product, the movie itself. And he has made a couple of amazing movies, a couple of really good movies, and a couple that are complete garbage. But again, that's a matter of personal taste.



Quit getting so emotional with your preconceived ideas and prepared speeches. I never said that a movie that has a good actor in it means it must have had a good screenplay. (I clarified again, your eyes must be popping out of their sockets by now.) I "clarify" because you "assume". That simple.



I know a lot of people who were scared by a few of his movies, as was myself. Again a matter of personal opinion. If you don't like them, fine..don't watch them..and don't read the screenplays either. But that's just common sense.

My comment did not include directors who are no longer alive. I should have said "any current director". Of course Hitchcock would be one...that should kind of go without saying civilian_number_two. After all Hitchcock is who Shyamalan was much compared to in his earlier movies...



I don't think I ever said his movies are good because he gets good actors...read my post again and tell me where I said that? Actually I think what I said was he wouldn't be able to get top-notch actors "if his drafts were really that bad." I don't think that statement has anything to do with the finished product itself. Of course there are bad movies with high-quality actors in them...actually most movies made are complete crap, and I know of many that have actors who are well-respected.