M. Night Shyamalan's After Earth

[Octoberist]

In light of this news, I think we can safely say that M. Night Shyamalan will have his first hit in a few years because everything Will Smith touches turns to gold, especially when it's sci-fi.


Exactly. Every director has hits and misses. I don't understand why Shyamalan is crucified for it. Why don't people go insane on Robert Zemeckis for making What Lies Beneath? Every director makes some bad movies. No one's infallible. Who cares? Move on with your lives, people. Either go to their movies or don't, or enjoy the good ones, but why the crucifixion on one random guy? Get over it, stop being children.

And yes, Zemeckis is getting panned due his obession with mo-cap movies.

 

[Octoberist]

I think in the end, most people want M. Night to do well. But he has become the drug addict friend that you wanna help because you care for him. And time and time again, he always disappoints you..

 

[Lencho01]

Here's another write-up that I thought was interesting...

http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2011/04/yesterdays-news-today-will-smith-teams.html

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Yesterday's News Today: Will Smith teams with M. Night Shyamalan. How they can help each other...



The news is brief and relatively vague. But Will Smith and Jaden Smith are apparently headlining an original science-fiction adventure film for none-other than M. Night Shyamalan. The Sony picture is untitled and the plot details are sparse ("Set 1,000 years into the future, a young boy navigates an abandoned and sometimes scary Earth to save himself and his estranged father after their ship crashes."), but the idea of the biggest star on Earth teaming with one of the more iconic filmmakers in the modern age remains an interesting one. Point being, it may well be a mutually-beneficial relationship for both of them.

It's no secret that M. Night Shyamalan has undergone a rather shocking artistic fall from grace over the last few years. The man who was once (lazily) called 'the next Spielberg' hasn't directed a completely satisfying film since Signs back in 2002. Sure, I can defend the ideas behind The Village and its gorgeous James Newton Howard score. I can praise it as a political parable about how fear leads to irrational behavior, as well as again explain that it wasn't supposed to be a horror film. And I can defend The Lady in the Water by acknowledging Paul Giamatti's tremendously affecting lead performance, as well as the intriguing idea of a man whose philosophies brought him fame and credibility only after (only because?) he was murdered. And I can admit that The Happening is a bad film while admiring its sheer absurdity and wacked-out 1950s B-movie vibe. And I can... no, other than a decent action climax, I cannot find much to recommend from The Last Airbender. In just under a decade, M. Night Shyamalan has gone from a filmmaker from whom everyone expected genius to someone from whom everyone expects drivel.

Will Smith has a different, arguably much smaller, problem. He is arguably the biggest movie star in the world, a guy who has scored massive worldwide hits in a variety of genres. But Following an impressive six-year run, from Men in Black 2 to Hancock, Smith finally had what could technically be called a 'miss'. I've argued before that Seven Pounds is still a relative hit, that $168 million worldwide for dark, somber, and relentlessly bleak drama about organ donation and suicide is a testament to Will Smith's star-power, not a strike against it. But the press ganged up, and Smith seemingly panicked, heading to the much-troubled Men in Black 3 (a film in such disarray that it may or may not actually get completed). For what it's worth, Men in Black 2 and Bad Boys 2 were partially 'comeback' films too, coming off a few box office whiffs (Wild Wild West, The Legend of Bagger Vance, Ali). While Will Smith remains the unchallenged box office champ at the moment, there was a fear that the 'failure' of Seven Pounds would have him fleeing back to the safety of his prior franchises (Independence Day, Men in Black, Bad Boys, etc). That Smith has apparently signed on for this original genre entry is a hopeful sign that the man who powered The Pursuit of Happyness to $307 million has not given up on his own star power.

So where does this leave these two iconic filmmakers? In a mutually beneficial place, I'd argue. Will Smith gets the chance to show yet again that he can power an original film to blockbuster levels, while giving his son Jaden another shot of box office mojo. He can prove yet again that he can pilot relatively high-quality genre films to blockbuster grosses without falling back on desperate cash-ins. After all, Will Smith isn't the biggest star in the world because Bad Boys II made $133 million domestic. Will Smith is the biggest star in the world because I Am Legend grossed $256 million domestic on his star-power alone. Let's see any of his would-be competitors (Johnny Depp, Adam Sandler) try a dark and depressing horror thriller where the main character is alone for the first two-thirds of the movie, there's almost no action for the first 80% of the picture, the dog slowly dies onscreen, and the hero kills himself in the end. I'd argue of course that Smith doesn't need to convince anyone of his star power, but his willingness to work without a net (and with a 'troubled' auteur) shows a grain of fearlessness that I was worried had been washed away.

As for M. Night Shyamalan, he theoretically gets what he needs most: someone arguably more powerful than him to tell him 'No'. Come what may, Shyamalan is still the guy who wrote and directed The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs. The man still has artistic instincts that merit attention, even if he desperately needs someone to keep him honest; someone to tell him to question his artistic choices to make sure they are the right ones. That's what he lost when he left Disney in a huff after they rejected the first draft of Lady in the Water. Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, and Paramount have basically allowed him free reign, and the continuing box office success of most of his films (only Lady in the Water is a genuine money-loser) have allowed him to rebuff those who point out the obvious discrepancy in quality between Unbreakable and The Happening. Working with an incredibly hands-on producer like Smith will give Shyamalan an equal (if not superior) to bounce his ideas off of, someone to constantly challenge him, someone to refuse to simply give M. Night carte-blanche just because he made pulled off a great twist ending twelve years ago. I still believe that the visionary and humanistic filmmaker who directed The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable is alive beneath the defensive posturing. This move, working with a powerful movie star who won't be blindly led off a cliff, shows what I can only hope is an acknowledgment from the writer/director that he has some karma to repair.

Of course, at this point the project is just a press release with a token plot synopsis. We still don't have a title, a release date, or any hint that this will end up working in an artistic capacity. But for both parties, it's a step in the right direction. This one gets a highly curious, perhaps naively hopeful 'we'll see...'.

Scott Mendelson

 

[Papa Burgundy]

Stupid? Is it? What if it really is like that with some malevolent alien race out there? There is ufo literature out there that puts forth the theory that some of the alien races who have visited Earth are allergic to water, I guess Shyamalan based it on that.

The way I look at it is, Earth is an organism right? Just like the human body, it will have anti-bodies in it's organic make-up to fight off attacks by invading organisms. Reality has created these specific types of aliens who want to invade and kidnap us, so in order for the human race to survive against these intruders, who are bigger and stronger than us, it has been granted with a defence mechanism with the old water.

edit: and even apart from that, whether you think it is a stupid concept.. Does he make it work dramatically in the movie? For me, yes, he does, it helps the story that they are cut off from society in essence, there is only that slight clue given by the Doc played by Shaymalan, that the aliens have not been seen near expanses of water. But, apart from that, shyamalan ticks all the dramatic boxes, he explains that the aliens have no interest in fighting weapon to weapon, risking nuclear strikes, as they want to bodily kidnap the people, not destroy them.
I would say they are counting on the fact that people just would not think of using such a thing as a water pistol against them. Given their superior tech, we would be thinking of the most sophisticated way of defeating them, and he also explains that their weakness was found during an attack on some middle eastern low tech village, who had limited defences, so someone just turned a water hose on them.
and of course, you have syncronicity/fate/God to thank for the family finding their weakness out, due to the kid's prediliction for having lots of glasses of water all over the place.

The point of the movie is not how they are defeated anyway, that is just dressing, the whole story is about having faith that God/Fate will take care of you if you believe. The fact they are cut off from other people, and have no apparent defences against the attack, is taken care of by these characteristics that have been given to them by God/fate, that allow them to survive.

if its really like that out there, great, cool, we know how to win a alien invasion, i just prefer if every alien movie didnt end that way. even if the movie isnt really about the alien invasion, they still have a alien invasion story and i wouldve preferred a better resolution. i kinda like the movie apart from that, some great acting, especially the dinner scene.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

if its really like that out there, great, cool, we know how to win a alien invasion, i just prefer if every alien movie didnt end that way. even if the movie isnt really about the alien invasion, they still have a alien invasion story and i wouldve preferred a better resolution. i kinda like the movie apart from that, some great acting, especially the dinner scene.

Yeah, good call, I remember thinking that Gibson's acting during that dinner scene was probably the best bit of acting I have seen from him, in fact I would say it definitely was.

2nd best? His ability to make his swearing and cursing sound awkward, and like the very first time he has ever done it.

Maybe I don't know my alien Invasion stories/movies that well, but I only recall WoTW being similar, as you said, them being defeated by something very common to our daily lifes, that we do not use in warfare against each other.(Although I hear the US Government has a project in development called Sneeze Wars, where they have been getting soldiers to sneeze their personal materials into missile silos since the 50s, and they are preparing to fire this over the Middle East, as there are not many oranges or chemists in the desert, so enemy soldier's accuracy at aiming will be disrupted randomly).

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

My point is that Empire of the Sun, Always, Hook, Twilight Zone: The Movie, obviously 1941, these are not universally beloved Spielberg movies. If the internet had been around then, there would have been unfair hyperbole going on, claiming, "He's fallen from grace!" just as there is now with Shyamalan. Hell, if weren't for the Indiana Jones franchise, which Spielberg could return to for a hit, the entire mid/late 80's/early 90's would've been considered a failure for Spielberg.

I am one of the die-hard Shyamalan fans that Octoberist was talking about, and i have to say that this statement you are making is simply not true, that part of Spielberg's career is in no way comparable to Shyamalan's current creative deficit.

- Empire of the sun is a very highly regarded movie. I don't know why you are citing it as an unbeloved movie, unless you are just citing it as it was not a blockbuster hit.
- Twilight zone is an anthology movie, it is not relevant to your argument.
- The main complaint people had with The Colour Purple was not that it was a bad movie, it was that it was a fair movie adaptation of a great book, and could have been better.

If Speilberg really did have a time in his career comparable to what Shyamalan is going through right now, there would be constant cultural references to Spielberg's great creative comeback, but there are not.
Sure, you may have had some armchair critics on the net back then spewing hyperbole like that, but it simply was not happening in the field of film criticism the way it is with Shyamalan now.

edit: Note: I have not seen Shyamalan's last movie yet, but I have only read a handful of people and one reviewer who said they liked it.
I have not seen Always or Hook, and have only seen some of The Colour Purple(it was on tv while I was busy arguing with people online.)
But none of these movies are considered outright jokes in the critical and fan landscape like The Happening or Lady in the Water, with the exception of Hook possibly in some circles.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

No, what that period of Speilberg's career was about, was trying to make more mature adult films, and he was very successful in that degree with Empire of the sun. It wasn't Indiana Jones that saved his rep there, his rep was in no serious danger at all.

edit: That period is considered by critics as Spielberg trying to play outside of the toybox, and having hit and miss results, so they thought at least he was making laudable attempts, even if they were not always as creatively successful as his sci-fi/adventure films. He is generally held to have proven himself in this degree finally with Schindler's List, but personally I would say he proved himself with EoTS.


The only time he ever had the critics go after him with vitirol was when he made 1941, that was the only time in his career that you can reasonably compare to Shyamalan's career right now, critics were calling him washed up etc, over one movie. Then he made his comeback with Raiders.

and Shyamalan did not have critics after him because of his digs at them in Lady of the Water, he put that in the movie because he had already had major digs at him from critics, mainly for The Village, but he also did not have great a reaction from critics and the audience for Unbreakable, and Signs to a lesser degree I think.

edit:I think you are reaching quite a bit to explain LITW's failure at the BO with that trailer business, if it really had a magical quality comparable to E.T., then audiences would have responded to it no matter what the trailer was.
I think you are reaching quite a bit with most of your argument, and some of it is simply not true at all, those parts I am talking about here in this post.

edit: Don't get me wrong, I understand the rest of your post, I too feel that Shyamalan could make another great movie, I just don't think his creative dip is comparable to any point in Speilberg's career.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

Will Smith & Son in the same movie ? I have a bad feeling about it.

 

[Octoberist]

@F1LMM4KER even though M. Night is an easy targets, but remember this: There are people out there who like X3 or Ghost Rider.

I'm not trying to rib you, but it's fine that you like M. Night's later work, but don't confuse that with the consensus.
I've stated before, I cannot see why you're like "Why are people giving up on M. Night" attitude when it's so damn obvious. We all want M. Night to do well and I do think he'll make another great movie one day but this is his 'DArk Age'. Not even Speilberg went through that, since your arguments for his 'dark period' doesn't touch M. Night's.

Speak of M. Night's name to any causal filmgoer, they groan. It's a shame b/c he had 2-3 good movies under this belt. Speilberg on the other hand had at least 6 great movies under his belt before he went through 'dark times' (which was still reconized as good movies; just smaller dramas and less fantasy).

 

[Fanticon]

so last airbender book 2 isn't happening? thank god. they could have at least admitted it publicly. I personally think will smith and m night are gonna butt heads on this.

 

[Octoberist]

The funnest thing is that I've watched M. Night's interviews for 'Airbender' and he is completely...oblivious on why fans were apprehesive about the casting or whatever. Slashfilm.com said it best that, it seems like M. Night is caught in his little bubble. Nice guy perhaps, but his ego is blinding his judgment on things.

 

[Lencho01]

The funnest thing is that I've watched M. Night's interviews for 'Airbender' and he is completely...oblivious on why fans were apprehesive about the casting or whatever. Slashfilm.com said it best that, it seems like M. Night is caught in his little bubble. Nice guy perhaps, but his ego is blinding his judgment on things.

I laughed when I saw that interview and how Devindra was all "You have no idea what is upon you" about the whole thing.

But, like the Mendelson and io9 posts said, Smith is likely going to keep on a short leash to ensure that the film can be enjoyed by most of its audience. No more carte blanche for him when it comes to big films.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

The funnest thing is that I've watched M. Night's interviews for 'Airbender' and he is completely...oblivious on why fans were apprehesive about the casting or whatever. Slashfilm.com said it best that, it seems like M. Night is caught in his little bubble. Nice guy perhaps, but his ego is blinding his judgment on things.

No doubt. He pretty much portrayed himself as Jesus in "Lady In The Water". With critics as *****bags who should be killed.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Only YOU can help send M. Knight Shymalan back to film school!

AV Club:

Sending M. Night Shyamalan back to film school—no longer the hyperbolic cry of the Internet, now a real-life crowdsourcing campaign launched by three former fans who have grown increasingly tired of watching the once-promising director undone by his own ego and increasingly empty bag of tricks. Or to put it in the words of the organizers, “Certainly, there must be 150,000 of us film lovers out there who are tired of his schlocky plot twists, canned dialogue, and over-commercialized image as an ‘auteur.’” Should you number among those, the cheekily named M. Night School asks that you contribute $1 toward enrolling Shyamalan for courses at NYU—the tuition for which will be presented in the form of a giant novelty check—all in time for him to put the lessons he’ll learn to good use moving Will and Jaden Smith around a post-apocalyptic wasteland.


Of course, the founders of the movement seem well aware that Shyamalan will turn down their offer—not only because he doesn’t really listen to his critics, but because “the guy’s a multimillionaire.” So they have a back-up plan: They will hold a festival for aspiring filmmakers and give the check to the winner.

The back-up plan isn't a check but an NYU scholarship.

 

[Rocketman]

Is this movie actually happening?

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Look, I'm not a picky guy when it comes to films. I find some horrid flicks watchable... but jeez.

I've had enough of the Smith family for a decade. The film The Book of Eli was crap-tastic. And M. Night hasn't done a decent movie since Signs (Devil doesn't count).

This has the makings of a film that I'm going to HATE

 

[MadVillainy]

Will Smith wasnt in Book of Eli. I dont think any of the Smith family was...

 

[Rocketman]

Book of Eli was Denzel Washington.
Did you mean I Am Legend? Because that too was craptastic.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm talking about the Smith family in general.

I'm quite aware that neither Smith was in the Book of Eli -- I just dislike the film. Therefore, I don't trust the director.

 

[Fanticon]

I'm talking about the Smith family in general.

I'm quite aware that neither Smith was in the Book of Eli -- I just dislike the film. Therefore, I don't trust the director.

I still don't get it...Smith didn't star in Book of Eli and M. Night didn't direct that movie, yet you bring it up as a reason you'll hate 1000AE?

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I still don't get it...Smith didn't star in Book of Eli and M. Night didn't direct that movie, yet you bring it up as a reason you'll hate 1000AE?

What is there to misunderstand?

1.) I'm tired of Will Smith. Is he not starring in this film?

2.) Once more, fully aware that Smith did not star in The Book of Eli. Read closely. I stated I disliked the film, and I do not trust the director. Is this person not attached to the project?

3.) M. Night ...nuff said.

 

[Man in the Suit]

What is there to misunderstand?

1.) I'm tired of Will Smith. Is he not starring in this film?

2.) Once more, fully aware that Smith did not star in The Book of Eli. Read closely. I stated I disliked the film, and I do not trust the director. Is this person not attached to the project?

3.) M. Night ...nuff said.

How can the guy who made Book of Eli be making it if M. Night is?

 

[Fanticon]

What is there to misunderstand?

1.) I'm tired of Will Smith. Is he not starring in this film?

2.) Once more, fully aware that Smith did not star in The Book of Eli. Read closely. I stated I disliked the film, and I do not trust the director. Is this person not attached to the project?

3.) M. Night ...nuff said.

perhaps you should read my post more closely. deduct 6 posts from yourself.

How can the guy who made Book of Eli be making it if M. Night is?

owned.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

How can the guy who made Book of Eli be making it if M. Night is?

Last I heard, this person wrote the screen play... or was this a rumor?

This was the guy who dropped out of Akira as well, right?

 

[Fanticon]

Last I heard, this person wrote the screen play... or was this a rumor?

This was the guy who dropped out of Akira as well, right?

Oh, well I guess you should have made that clear originally as to why you brought up book of elit: yes Gary Whitta is "attached"