Talk:M. Night Shyamalan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
PacificBoy (talk
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.

Quality: B-Class (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Kerala workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.

[edit] Variety Review of Lady in the Water

Restored cut of the review. The Variety advance review is pertinent, especially considering that in the film industry it is considered a reputable and noteworthy publication, and its reviews are considered generally accurate insofar as aesthetic criticism and commercial potential are concerned.

The paragraph itself was POV-neutral, limiting itself to quoting the facuality and specifics of the review and not commenting on it. --200.74.66.136 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up/FA Status?

I decided to remove the "Cleanup Task Force" page from discussion. I have gone through and expanded this article the past few days and I personally think it's a job well done and doesn't require much cleanup. If you disagree feel free to discuss here. --Cormacalian 04:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've been working on this for awhile now and was wondering who thinks this article has FA status potential? Do you think it needs improvement? And where? Do you see anywhere were I can expand it? I was thinking of nominating it some time in the future but was going to wait until the release of Lady in the Water to see how it is received by audiences. Or until I was sure that there is no more I can expand (i.e. Early Life, Style, Lady in the Water Books, etc). --Cormacalian 17:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a journalist who's been cleaning up this article, having just interviewed Shyamalan and doing much research on him in preparation. The Unbreakable section has several problems:

Shyamalan still considers the film a failure, blaming its early release and its lack of emotion. Answers.com - M. Night Shyamalan: Biography and Much More From Answers.com

That source DOES NOT contain the stated remark.

Shyamalan said he had originally conceived the film as part of a trilogyAmazon.com - Unbreakable Information

The Amazon page makes an uncited claim of a Bruce Willis quote about a trilogy, but DOES NOT give a source for this supposed quote, making this an unsourced secondhand comment and not the verifiable source Wikipedia requires.

and that he has been approached by the public about continuing the story, stirring rumors of a possible sequel.Ain't It Cool News - Lady in the Water Interview with Shyamalan

This source DOES NOT contain the stated remark. Harry Knowles, the interviewer, says, "I really wanted to you continue to explore the Unbreakable story, like you had mentioned having a possibility for". But nowhere in this source does Shyamalan mention this, so there's no way to confirm Knowles is correct or misinterpreting -- Shyamalan doesn't say it, so there's no way of knowing what Shyamalan intended. Also, while two or three forum posters say they'd like to see a sequel, a) that's very different that "rumors of a possible sequel", and b) Wikipeida considers personal forum postings to be opinion and not fact, and therefore disallowed as source material. -- 69.22.254.111 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well either that can be removed, or I can find more appropraite cites. That aside what do you journalist who just got back from seeing Shyamalan himself think of it being FA status? Maybe I could cite you though? Would do you write for? Did you ask Shyamalan if Unbreakable would be a sequel? --Cormacalian 01:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the article is FA status, having seen how tough peer reviewers are to articles that are even more extensive and detailed than this. I write for a New York City newspaper -- I can't really say more without compromising anonymity. Didn't ask about Unbreakable sequel; about upcoming projects, he'd only say that it won't be The Life of Pi, and that he's writing something completely new. He did claim, on his own without being asked, that people come up to him all the time asking if he's going to make an Unbreakable sequel, but then didn't expand on that or say that he wanted to make one. Watch the newspapers starting the Sunday before the movie comes out; there should be plenty of material to cite -- after the commercial failure of The Village, Shyamalan has been doing more press than he has for a while. --69.22.254.111 01:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I added a picture of Shyamalan, not sure if it will stick. Andy 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't. We need to find a new one. RJFJR 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

I've removed "pronounced SHEW-ma-lawn" from the article. Could someone in the US tell me if he actually calls himself that? Its very different from the from the Indian pronunciation of his last name, but then he changed 'nelliyattu' to 'night', so I wouldn't put it past him :-) -- Arvindn 07:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should use his own pronunciation for the article as well as his trade name with the abreviated 'M.' for the article's title. --Rj 07:40, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Right. I've moved it. Don't know what his own pronunciation is, though. -- Arvindn 08:18, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where did "pronounced SHAW-ma-lawn" come from? ...Ed? --Rj 07:32, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

He pronounces his name "Shah-mah-lahn", if you want to use ACTUAL phoenetics. The sound is not a "shaw" sound, but a "shah" sound, as in "spa," and not like "claw."

I changed the pronunciation to /ʃamalan/, but are the vowels /a/ or /ɑ/, or even something else? And is that an Anglicized pronunciation? Ardric47 04:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Another note on pronounciation of his last name if he were still living in India, it would be "Sha-Ma-Lun" (Lun spoken like Sun).

This name reminds me of a quote from Henry Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade who cites Charlemagne (or is it M. Night Shyamalan?): "Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky." (listen to it or find more ) Brevity 19:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it Charlemagne, also asks this post. Brevity

Why N/A in the cameo table? Not available? Not applicable? Doesn't really make sense. How about a simple No or None? Also the articles a bit empty, no real substance. (I'll stop whinging now.)--Jones77 17:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

i changed the spelling of Joaquin Phoenix so it can be linked

In the trailers to his movies, his name is pronounced [ˈʃaməˈlan], with stress on the first and third syllables and with the second syllabe reduced to schwa. I'm going to add this to the main article, partly because it now lacks any information on syllable stress. If anyone knows how his name is written in Tamil (it is a Tamil name, right), I'd like to see it written here. Thanks. Interlingua ^{talk email} 23:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He is actually a Malayalee, and Grammatical error (talk · contribs) has added the Malayalam pronunciation. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}

Thanks for the pronunciation and script in Mayalayalm. However I think we also ought to have his name as he pronounces in it American English since that's been the basis of his working career. I've re-added that. The red link is due, I think, to the absence of an IPA chart for Malayalam. If you know how to add that chart, or fix the link, please do so. But I think it's best that we not remove the American English pronouncation of his name. Interlingua ^{talk email} 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've linked it to Malayalam language#Phonology. I'm not at all familiar with phonetics, so could you verify that this is an IPA chart/ equivalent? -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The page you linked it to is quite dense with info: for each sound it has two orthography entries (in Roman and Mayalayalm script) and two types of phonetic transcription (in IPA and also in the system more often used by South Asianists). The IPA symbols are placed in slashes / / to indicate that they are phonemes, as is correct. So, yes, to answer your question, it does include all the relevant information aobut IPA, and then some. Thanks Joseph. Interlingua ^{talk email} 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There still is no pronounciation in Tamil. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 13:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing new about English variations on pronunciation, and a native English speaker is unlikely pronounce foreign names and words exactly as a native speaker: however, there should be an approximation appropriate for English speakers, as is the case for most foreign names and words. Granted this represents a fundamental lack of precision, but it does replace an English speaker's guessing with a degree of accuracy. Until a perfect solution is found, an accurate guide to pronunciation should be included. Thereafter, this guide can be replaced with ever increasing precision.

[edit] "realistic treatment of horror or science fiction themes"

I take issue with the above quote from the body of the article - have any of you seen Signs? The idea of an alien race who can cross the vast interstellar gulfs and render their huge ships invisible, but are unable to open doors, concieve of even the crudest of weapons (even though they have come here evilly bent on global domination), or protect themselves from the earth's water-rich/poison-rich environment, is very far from realistic science fiction. I found Signs to be far too poorly thought-out for this claim to be made. Burtonpe 14:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think these contradictions are what makes the aliens complex and therefore realistic.24.193.251.70 04:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So by their essence of not making any sense, they are realistic? Come on. It would have been realistic if the aliens had some sort of enviromental suit. Signs isn't so much as a realistic science fiction film as it is a modern fairy tale/allagory of faith. Only by looking at it that way does the not being able to open the door type of stuff have any sort of logic. I'm sure that an advanced alien race would really need to communicate via crop circles as well. Realistic sci-fi is rarely ever seen on film, if ever.

[edit] Roman Catholic

What is the evidence that he is a Roman Catholic? MarcAurel 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

He went to a Roman Catholic school. I am unsure if he is actually a baptised Roman Catholic or not, though. LuminousSpecter 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just checked it with the man himself, he's not Roman Catholic, he's agnostic. 149.169.9.206 20:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

With great respect, that counts as original research, so no go. We would need a published document to that effect. JackofOz 01:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He is a Hindu from Kerala, India belonging to a caste called Ezhava.

[edit] Theme of Metaphysical Catharsis section

THis is a bad section... it's got meaningless cliche sentences, second-person writing, and what is, until sources are provided, pure speculation. I'm gonna go ahead and be bold and delete it, if anyone objects, revert and discuss. Karwynn 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lady in the Water

RE: This paragraph:

Early reviews for "Lady" have called it Signs-shaded and Shyamalan's best, most personal film.NRI Internet Entertainment - Manoj Night Shyamalan] JoBlo.com going as far to claim the film as Shyamalan's finest film to date and the best "bedtime-story" since Princess Bride. JoBlo.com - "Early Lady Review!"

The NRI Interest Entertainment site actually does not say what's stated here. It says, "The earliest review for the film came from Ain't It Cool News, declaring the rough cut of the film an incoherent mess. Subsequent reviews for the film have suggested otherwise, calling it Signs-shaded and Shyamalan's best, most personal film." The NRI site DOES NOT SAY who called it those things, making this unverifiable.

Additionally, there are no early reviews plural -- just the single JoBlo.com review, which in an other itself does not indicate any consensus, obviously. The Ain't It Cool News "incoherent mess" review cited by NRI does not appear to BE at Ain't It Cool News -- Lady in the Water is not in the new-review list at [1], nor the "L"-review list at [2], nor on the Cool News page at [3]. For these reasons, I'm deleting the paragraph. The mainstream reviews will appear soon enough. -- 69.22.254.111 02:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI--- The Aint It Cool News "First review of M. Night Shyamalan's LADY IN THE WATER!!!" was archived by a fan at this website--> [4] It is no longer at AICN probably because of the reasons given at that site (pressures on the "reviewer”, lawyer action, or both)69.72.7.184 00:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style section

I hate to say this, given the heartfelt work that went into it, but the writer(s) of this section really needed to read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines before undertaking it. The vast majority of this section is disallowed original research that also contains opinions. I've salvaged what I could, but Wikipedia is very clear on thesw two specific points of What Wikipedia is not. For example, this paragraph...

His films are often the ideal catalyst for such plot twists with the depictions of ordinary people encountering and dealing with the paranormal or extraordinary event. This enables for the mystique of the unknown and adds mystery to the exact nature of the occurrences of the film, making it easy for Shyamalan to munipulate the audience.

...is all opinion and original analysis. The only way this could be allowed is if you were providing a specific citation quoting a recognized authority saying these things.

And also, any such citations have to be accurate. The section also says:

...many ... have compared him to Alfred Hitchcock. Tom Polluck [Note: It's "Pollock"], producer and once head of Universal Studios. claims it is the "scary, suspenseful" work that makes him "Hitchcockian", and Touchstone calling him "the cinema's modern master of suspense." Buzzle.com - "Shyamalan – the ‘Unbreakable’ ‘Sign’ of ‘The Sixth Sense’"

But that's NOT what Pollock says in the article. He says:

"There are certain directors who are brands. Their names, in fact, have become adjectives. "Hitchcockian," he offers. "Hitchcockian means something... . It means 'scary, suspenseful filmmaker.' "Capraesque... . To say a film is Capraesque, you're expecting a movie about a small-town guy who becomes a hero."

Pollock ISN'T saying Shyamalan is Hitchcockian. He's saying adjectives such as Hitchcockian and Capraesque exist, and that Shyamalan also has a personal, recognizable style -- of his own, not Hitchcock's or Capra's.

Also, the hyperbolic Touchstone quote about "the cinema's modern master of suspense" is not journalistically or encyclopedically valid, coming as it does from Shyamalan's own movie distributor, thus making it a biased rather than disinterested quote. -- 69.22.254.111 02:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the "casting crossovers" section since it's encyclopedically unremarkable. Countless directors use actors in two films. This is very distinct from, say, Federico Fellini using Marcello Mastroianni as his alter ego throughout several films, or Garry Marshall using Hector Elizondo as his "good luck charm" in all of Marshall's movies. -- 69.22.254.111 02:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Why though remove the "color" section. That was not original research. Watch the DVD Bonus Material. Shyamalan goes all through about the red he used in Signs, and the village is self-explanitory. As for Plot Twist, that too is not original research or opinion. Maybe a little misquoted but not original research. All you left was cameos. So I'll revert it, just for the time being, and edit it till it does not contact original research. Then remove what parts need to be removed instead of deleting it all. --Cormacalian 03:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, and if Shyamlan is saying this stuff on a DVD commentary, you just need to cite it is all.

However, we're really not supposed to put disallowed material up, and then fix it afterward. We really need to have it be verifiable and encyclopedic before it goes up. That's really kinda basic Wikipedia policy, and the reason I deleted it. You did see I wrote I had great respect for the amount of work involved. -- 69.22.254.111 13:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, when making edits to an article, you have to say in the edit summary what you did. That's also just Wikipedia policy. Thanks! -- 69.22.254.111 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT A TWEEST! --66.218.23.59 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

your first two movies were awsome (sighns) (the villiage) but all the others suck because they all had the same layout.

[edit] Sources

Several of the sources cited to this article are not reliable (I'm not saying the information is not correct, I'm just saying the sources should not be used). These are Answers.com (ridiculous to cite that - it's a mirror of Wikipedia!!), IMBD.com (fan submitted trivia) and NNDB (culls its info from Wikipedia, IMDB, and other non-reliable sources). Thanks Mad Jack 07:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What is more, 128.239.208.243 on 10/25 inserted a false claim into the criticism section attempting to disguise it behind a legitimate-looking citation that is, in fact, unrelated to the claim. I've deleted, but reader beware. JGray 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alledged Plagiarism

The claim that MNS may be plagiarising other works, is supported in part by an Internet text written by the author of one of the works that it is claimed has been plagiarised[5]. The similarity with Lost Boys seems, admitedly after having only accessed the wikipedia article on Lost Boys, rather tenuous to me. I think that it should be backed up at least by a third party review, since it is a serious allegation. The claim that The Village, resembles Running Out of Time is again supported by the same piece by the author of Lost Boys, whose claim to impartiality is questionABLE. However, IMHO opinion there the author of Lost Boys is onto something; there does seem to be a significant - although possibly random - similarity between The Village and Running out of Time, and it is pointed out on that wikipedia article that the publisher of the latter considered legal action against MNS. I suggest therefore leaving the *allegation* (or a milder phrase) of non-random similarity in the latter case, but removing the former until an independent observer finds similarity.

[edit] Naturalization

The opener currently describes Shyamalan as "Indian-American". Both of his parents are Indian and he was born in Pondicherry, suggesting that he could only have taken US citizenship by a process of naturalization (this is quite common in Hollywood). Is there any record of Shyamalan becoming a US citizen? Does he presently hold single or dual nationality? --Tony Sidaway 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

He was raised in Philly, apparently, and applied for US citizenship as an adult. He says his choice of the name "Night" comes from that time. [6] --Tony Sidaway 12:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box office gross

I moved this here from the article space because I don't think it really adds to the article, but others may disagree. RJFJR 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Praying With Anger

Budget: $750,000

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $100,000

+ Foreign: N/A

= Worldwide: N/A

Wide Awake

Budget: $6,000,000

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $282,175

+ Foreign: N/A

= Worldwide: $282,175

The Sixth Sense

Budget: $40,000,000

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $293,506,292

+ Foreign: $379,300,000

= Worldwide: $672,806,292

Unbreakable

Budget: $73,200,000

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $95,011,339

+ Foreign: $153,106,782

= Worldwide: $248,118,121

Signs

Budget: $70,200,000

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $227,966,634

+ Foreign: $180,281,283

= Worldwide: $408,247,917

The Village

Budget: $71,600,000

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $114,197,520

+ Foreign: $142,500,000

= Worldwide: $256,697,520

Lady in the Water

Budget: $70,000,000

TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES (through 8/17/2006)

Domestic: $42,285,169

+ Foreign: $30,200,000

= Worldwide: $72,485,169

sources: [7] The Smoking Gun IMDb rediff.com

Glad it was removed. It seems to have been a POV edition to the article that is part of an often repeated fan-fiction that M. Night Shyamalan has made a profit with every movie. It is deceptive because it list GROSSES, not NET. If you caculate the NET then "Unbreakable" and "Village" made little or no proffit and "Lady" is at least $100 million in the hole. 69.72.2.72 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to MNS in other Media

He was mentioned by the character Dale in an episode of King of the Hill. Can't remember which one, but perhaps someone can. NB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.65.19.208 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Honestly these little trivia sections need to go. Passing mentions in shows are just trivial, hence why they're called trivia. They're not notable and don't really do anything to give any great understanding to the reader about the subject.--Crossmr 05:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I also notice sections like this are original research, i.e someone saw an instance of Shyamalan appearing in the media and cites their own observation. I would think to be valid, the is section should cite some notable critic or social commentators article about Shyamalan’s appearances in popular culture... there need to be a reference other then the editors own eyeballs. 69.72.7.8 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wide Awake not Mentioned

In his list of works, wide awake is not included.

Fixed 69.72.7.8 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backlash is not objective

This article is quite clearly tainted by backlash. However, as Wikipedia is a reference source, such swings of the pendulum (and the pendulum itself) are inappropriate here. Whether something is "hot or not" is utterly irrelevant to reference material during all phases of "hot" through "not". It would be equally and similarly inappropriate if a public relations or marketing firm put in favorable matter.

Such subjective and sensational matters already have a several appropriate forums including the blog-sphere, just to name one. This article would be greatly improved by a removal of such, or a replacement with relevant factual matters.

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

The following text was added today and requires a better reference than "a recent issue." I couldn't find the interview at the SFX website. If someone can properly cite the interview, then we can keep this. I'm leaving it for the moment because it is non-controversial and sounds plausible.

According to a brief interview with the co-creators taken in a recent issue of SFX Magazine, M. Night Shyamalan came across Avatar when his daughter asked him for a "Waterbender necklace" one Christmas. Intrigued, Shyamalan researched and watched the series with his family, eventually gainin a certain connection to it. He enjoyed the spiritual aspects, as well as the martial arts it expressed.

- Taranah 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of malayalam pronunciation

There was an accurate Malayalam pronunciation here before, so why has it been removed? It's not like it can't co-exist with the English approximation (which is actually very inaccurate).--Kannan91 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial "References"

The section "References in other media" is nothing but observational trivia. I have moved it here to talk but I see no way it could be re-intergrated in the article unless there is some other source for this other then peoples observations. 64.0.112.103 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

References in other media

Shyamalan's predilection for twist endings is frequently spoofed on the stop-motion animation TV series Robot Chicken. A segment of episode nine, entitled "The Twist", features a fictional movie written by, directed by and starring Shyamalan (voiced by show co-creator Seth Green) that consists entirely of a string of plot twists, each followed by Shyamalan exclaiming, "What a twist!". The fictional Shyamalan also appears occasionally to end a segment with the "What a twist!" saying. In a parody of Ebert & Roeper, he appeared as a guest critic who used variations on the saying to comment on the films.

An episode of Code Monkeys features a young Shyamalan performing humiliating tasks to earn a ticket to ET. His friend Dave calls Manoj "M" for the first time and gives him the idea for The Sixth Sense.

The Simpsons episode "Homer's Paternity Coot", Homer Simpson, after learning that his biological father's name starts with "M", asks "Who could my father be? Moleman? Mr. Burns? (gasps) M. Night Shyamalan? That would be a twist worthy of his increasingly lousy films!"

Shyamalan appeared as himself in the "Sorry, Harvey" episode of Entourage. Shyamalan meets Ari Gold at a cemetery, where he's filming an American Express TV commercial. He gives Gold a 200-page script to read by the following morning and threatens to quiz him on it. The next morning, he gives Gold a revised script and forces him to read it on the spot.

In the "Imaginationland" episode of South Park, Shymalan is criticized as having no ideas in his movies, only twists.

In the comic strip FoxTrot, main characters Jason and Marcus are watching TV when a commercial comes on for a movie called "Sines," a play on words from the Math Channel they were watching.

On the second season premiere of the sketch comedy show "Human Giant", there is a painfully long, seemingly pointless story told of a gay porn star who dies in a car crash and comes back to haunt the man involved in the crash with him. It is revealed that he has come back to help reveal that the real cause of the accident was because someone cut his breaks, a crime conveniently captured in footage from his last porn film. After one of the most painfully long five minute segments in recent sketch comedy show history, we are informed that the man who is being haunted is in fact dead too, and was also a gay porn star who died in the same accident! Human Giant then presents us with the punchline after this "startling" revelation: a title card that reads "Written and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan."

[edit] Spoiler alert?

Should The Happening's plot synopsis be prefaced with a spoiler alert? A vaguer synopsis would suffice, especially given the nature of the director's work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.12.162 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section

The second paragraph of this section, about plagiarism, needs to be finished. The complaint by Orson Scott Card needs some resolution, and it should really note that it IS Card who did the complaining. If that's the best there is, it may be close to violating WP:BLP, as the article as it now stands is basically affirming Card's comment. There is no resolution to the Robert McIlhenney lawsuit nor a conclusion to the "considered" lawsuit. These need to be balanced out soon, or that paragraph needs to be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fascinating article in NYT yesterday

Since I see there's a dedicated editor to this page, I thought I'd just share this stuff here: The NYT Business section had this article on Shyamalan's relationship with studios, post-The Sixth Sense. I thought the initial discussion of how the studio treated Unbreakable to be particularly fascinating and worked it into the movie's article. There might be good information there. I also recommend this older Entertainment Weekly article on Lady in the Water. --Bobak (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

Talk:M. Night Shyamalan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Variety Review of Lady in the Water

[edit] Clean up/FA Status?

[edit] Picture

[edit] Pronounciation

[edit] "realistic treatment of horror or science fiction themes"

[edit] Roman Catholic

[edit] Theme of Metaphysical Catharsis section

[edit] Lady in the Water

[edit] Style section

[edit] Sources

[edit] Alledged Plagiarism

[edit] Naturalization

[edit] Box office gross

[edit] References to MNS in other Media

[edit] Wide Awake not Mentioned

[edit] Backlash is not objective

[edit] Avatar: The Last Airbender

[edit] removal of malayalam pronunciation

[edit] Trivial "References"

[edit] Spoiler alert?

[edit] Criticisms section

[edit] Fascinating article in NYT yesterday

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search