badposting
badposting is a comm where you post badly
This is not a !the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net alternative. This is not a !memes@hexbear.net alternative. This is a place for you to post your bad posts.
Ever had a really shitty bit idea? Joke you want to take way past the point of where it was funny? Want to feel like a stand-up comedy guy who's been bombing a set for the past 30 minutes straight and at this point is just saying shit to see if people react to it? Really bad pun? A homemade cringe concoction? A cognitohazard that you have birthed into this world and have an urge to spread like chain mail?
Rules:
- Do not post good posts.
- Unauthorized goodposting is to be punished in the manner of commenting the phrase "GOOD post" followed by an emoji that has not yet been used in the thread
- Use an emoticon/kaomoji/rule-three-abiding ASCII art if the rations run out
- This is not a comm where you direct people to other people's bad posts. This is a comm where you post badly.
- This rule intentionally left blank.
- If you're struck for rule 3, skill issue, not allowed to complain about it.
Code of Conduct applies just as much here as it does everywhere else. Technically, CoC violations are bad posts. On the other hand: L + ratio + get ~~better~~ worse material bozo
view the rest of the comments
I'd love to hear some rationale for this, it's quite a take, or is it a bit?
No and in fact I find the mainstream reception to his later works somewhat puzzling. All of the films I've seen of his* (Which is all but 4 now) I've found deftly constructed and profoundly emotionally resonant. Each of his films have moved me in ways 99% of other Hollywood productions have failed to. Plus I think he's one of the greatest image makers of modern cinema, each film is gorgeously shot with heaps of incredibly evocative compositions. I think his detractors seem to focus on his perceived weakness as a screenwriter, and I can see how his dialogue might not be for everyone, but it clicks for me. Maybe it's because I'm not neurotypical enough but I don't find myself concerned with how conversations are "supposed to sound".
This take rocks, comrade.
Lady In The Water is what did it for me- it's an undeniably flawed movie but the critical response was so reductive & thoughtless especially considering what the literal Story (tm) was about
unironic auteur cinema
I agree that he's a skilled filmmaker and don't get the common and unreasonable hatred for him either, but I don't know if I would go that far to praise him. I haven't watched his latest several movies, but I have a theory about why many people feel that his films went downhill - how much someone enjoys his movies depends almost entirely on the order that they watch them in. That's because his movies have common elements in them that eventually feel repetitive and somewhat predictable. It's a big mystery, suspense, and then always a big twist reveal at the end. At least that was the pattern with his first several. I think that this repetitiveness/predictability also speaks to his weakness as a screenwriter like you mentioned, more so than his dialogue does.
To illustrate this, most people think his first hit film, The Sixth Sense, is his best. That's because most people watched that first and then watched the later movies in order. Just look at this IMDB score progression (screenshot of list of Shyamalan's films from The Sixth Sense [1999] to The Happening [2008] in reverse chronological order with the score for each, which shows that the scores get progressively worse with each subsequent movie in that period):
On the other hand, I know someone who watched The Village as their first Shyamalan film before watching several of his others from that same period and that's their favorite out of the bunch. To me, this indicates that if people watched his films in isolation, never having watched any of his others, their scores would be much more even and/or random and not be exactly progressively worse.
TL;DR: My theory is that the first Shyamalan film someone watches is usually their favorite and then their impressions go downhill with each subsequent one they watch because of some repetitive elements, particularly the big twist at the end. This seems to apply to at least his first 6 popular films.
not OP but M Night is also an entirely independent filmmaker who self-funds his movies through his own production company. his movies are ass but they are entirely his own un-meddled vision, which is rare these days and i do admire
Just him and Tyler Perry out there holding the line against studio slop
All the others are secretly zombies or Canadian, like Tom Green.