M. Night Shyamalan...no seriously - Page 3

Agreed, though I'd say the real crux of the problem was that MNS was seemingly just as keen as the studio to foster this 'genius' image, maybe even moreso. It always seemed to me that he was loving this hype, even helping to generate it himself on Buried Secret of M. Night Shyamalan. Maybe his lack of diversity was part of this ego trip ('Watch as I blow your minds again! Aaand again! Aaaand again!') Kind of like a young comedian who has one bit that slays the audience every time, and can't stop doing it to the detriment of him writing new material. Even if that documentary was meant as a joke, it didn't play that way. MNS has never seemed the self-deprecating type.

Ultimately though, you're right: he became a one-trick pony, and by the time The Village came round people were starting to bore of it. Unfortunately, this was also the point where he was expecting us to worship him for it more than ever before, and that self-promotion only served to turn boredom into active dislike.

I just wanted to say that I agree with those who view the mocumentary as the turning point in both public and personal sentiment towards Night. As I recall, the doc was exposed in the press as a fraud/stunt before the studio had intended (they wanted to let it ride a few weeks as a hype building thing). This caused a backlash because then when the doc came out after everyone already knew it was phony, many saw it as an outrageous lie designed to bolster his own mystique, rather than (perhaps) the actions of an over eager and out of touch director over estimating his fan bases' appetite for gimkicks centered on his cult of personality - an early example of viral marketing 

Still though, I know it left a bad taste in my mouth, and it cemented the idea that MNS was someone on the wrong track, and without a clue 

With LADY IN THE WATER and the book following shortly thereafter, it became easy enough to dismiss him entirely, and his later failures no longer seemed surprising or out of character after that point

I've noticed a surprising trend in recent articles about Night's forthcoming sci-fi film:  it's being described as his "comeback film".  Wasn't that the very thing said about The Last Airbender?

Maybe it's because he's working with Will Smith (even so, he's worked with "big stars" before in the form of Willis and Gibson...although Smith and his son are more formidable in terms of the box office prospects if that's how they are defining a "comeback"), but the project doesn't seem any more a departure for Shyamalan than Airbender was intended to be.  True, he did not write the film this time around, but after seeing Book of Eli, Gary Whitta seems to be someone who can mimic Night's sensibilities rather well.  It's hardly a challenging team-up.

As a director, he's got such an effortless command of mood and gravitas that maybe he should get away from the sci-fi/fantasy/horror and go back to his roots, small dramas.

As others have pointed out, Sixth Sense wasn't his first film, and maybe if he stops consciously trying to re-invent the wheel and brings his directing chops to bear on a variety of stories, he could be, I dunno, a born-again Soderbergh. Preferably something he connects with personally but doesn't write.

Haven't seen Praying with Anger — few people have, probably because he's most likely done his damnedest to suppress a DVD release. Sure would like to, though. Would be interesting to see what he did with a small, personal story years before he became M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN.

The thing I've never been able to fully overcome, even with his acclaimed early work, is Night's heavy hand.  For instance, while Wide Awake is indeed small and personal, it's terribly, terribly written.  Same with Signs - great mood, generally good acting, but for every good scene or line, there's a noxious, overwrought one.  

There are emerging talents now that do the whole Shyamalan thing better than the man himself ever did.  And they don't come off as partially moronic in interviews.