Topic: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

I usually avoid watching adaptations of things I really like. Not only are they usually bad, but even when they're good (Coraline, Watchmen) it's hard to enjoy this version for what it is and not nitpick every difference. That said, I braved watching Airbender after work today.

When compressing a long story, be it a comic, TV series, or novel, into a shorter form like a movie, it all comes down not to what you're going to cut out but to what you're going to use and focus on. The original has characters, themes, and plot, and the screenwriter basically has to pick just one or two and center their version of that. For Airbender, M. Night Shyamalan has decided to focus on a theme (accepting your destiny), two characters (Aang and Zuko) and plot. The result... is lacking in too many ways. The first two thirds of the film feel like edited highlights, even the opening scenes where you need to take your time to establish the world and characters, and not until they get to the North Pole does the film settle down into a real movie. There's no real sense of humor, or fun, with Sokka suffering particularly in that regard (which hurts any attempt at a character arc in later films). At 1hr 40min the film really need an extra half hour in the middle, the equivalent of an episode or two, showing the three kids actually traveling and bonding instead of just one quick scene and a voice over. Without that, there's no emotional center.

But, perhaps most importantly... Katara didn't have hair loopies!!!!!

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

How the fuck did Shyamalan make one awesome movie and one pretty good one?

His nose dive into incompetence baffles me.

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

The main problem here is script more then direction, although we can still blame Shyamalon for it. Structure it differently using these visuals, and even actors (for the most part) and it can work.

So, to answer your question, it's probably that he just only had two good stories in him.

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

What sounds like the problem is with AIRBENDER (other than the well-established fact that MNS has no idea how human beings speak or behave) is that, like WATCHMEN -- which I liked but thought could have been better as a movie -- the focus was on making sure that all the iconic scenes got into the movie, because the fans wanted to see them. So we end up racing from one plot point to the next without getting a good sense of what it means or why we should care.

WATCHMEN kind of worked even with that in mind, but it was also twice as long as AIRBENDER's running time. There just isn't enough time to do everything in a movie -- that would be true if it were a three hour movie (which it should have been) but it was literally the worst possible way to do the movie in 90-some minutes.

I don't know what remained and what was cut in the film, but I know you could cut Aunt Wu, cut Omashu and Bumi, and probably (though not without some difficulty later) cut Jet. You could also cut Haru and the Earth Kingdom prisoners, but they might be useful in terms of condensing the story by having Admiral Zhao be there, instead of Admiral Sulu.

What you cannot cut are the Kyoshi warriors, the Southern Air Temple and Northern Air Temple (although you could probably combine them and have all the necessary events take place at one or the other), meeting Avatar Roku, and the events at the North Pole.

Three hours would be tough, but it would be doable. The bigger issue is having time for each character to be a character rather than a pawn moved around making plot happen. That's what you really need the time for.

The problem with Shyamalan is that early on, he was insecure and worked hard to show he knew what he was doing, which meant that he put together something great because he was constantly second-guessing himself and making sure he was making the best choices.

But then after SIXTH SENSE, he had all of Hollywood telling him he was a total genius who could do no wrong, and he eventually started to believe that this was true, and stopped second-guessing his choices because he had been convinced they were self-evidently genius.

He used to work hard, but he made it look easy. Then he got convinced that it WAS easy and stopped trying, and stopped listening to any dissenting voices. If they don't like it, that must be their problem, because he's a genius you see.

I don't need to say the other name we're all thinking.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

DorkmanScott wrote:

But then after SIXTH SENSE, he had all of Hollywood telling him he was a total genius who could do no wrong, and he eventually started to believe that this was true, and stopped second-guessing his choices because he had been convinced they were self-evidently genius.

I'm not sure that's true - not one of his movies since Sixth Sense has been a hit, and more than one of those movies has been called the Wurst Movee Evar.   Judging from this interview, he is aware of this.   

Apparently it's not that he doesn't care, it's that he honestly doesn't know why people don't like his stuff anymore.    I find this more plausible than the theory that he believes in his own hype, since that hype turned sour a decade ago.

I am reminded of the Akiva Goldsman quote about not knowing in advance which of his movies are the "bad" ones, since he works just as hard on all of them.

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Then I guess it may just be a disconnect from reality. He claims a good 20 reporters told him THE VILLAGE was one of their favorite films of all time. That is not true. I don't have to be there to know it's untrue. That is as untrue as if he claimed 20 reporters flew into the room with supernatural powers. It is a violation of the laws of the universe. He may not be lying, if he truly believes it -- but if he truly believes it, he's flat-out delusional.

This isn't totally out of the question, though. I won't name names, but I worked with one filmmaker who will tell you that at the premiere of one of his films, the audience was hooting and hollering with excitement, really connecting with the material, and when the credits rolled they brought the house down with applause.

I was at that premiere, and that is not what happened. The film was bad. The audience was mostly silent, with the occasional incredulous laugh or jeer at a particularly clumsy moment. And when the credits rolled, most of the audience walked out, with only the small contingent of cast and crew near the front giving themselves a loud pat on the back.

So when he tells me about another premiere or screening that got a huge and overwhelming positive response, I can guess what really happened.

And I don't think the guy is lying. I think he genuinely remembers things going the way he tells it. But he, too, finds himself baffled because he believes that he does good work that people love and yet he can't get a break. And the problem is that the premise "I do good work that people love" is false and he is psychologically incapable of seeing it.

If that's the case with MNS, then the answer to why he started strong would have to be just pure, dumb fucking luck.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Not having seen either the film in question or the series it was based on, I have only one thing to add to this thread:

Shyamalan can make another five or ten bad or just not-great movies, and he'll still be on the plus side of the line with me. "Unbreakable" was that good.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Sometimes you remind me that I really don't know you at all.

I'm sorry, but when you factor in THE VILLAGE, LADY IN THE WATER, and THE HAPPENING, not even counting LAST AIRBENDER, no movie is that good.

Certainly not UNBREAKABLE, which was tolerably good when it seemed like M. Night might be going somewhere with a sequel and was just smarter than the rest of us, but now seems like a bullet dodged at best.

He's not just making "bad movies." He's making "cinematic abortions."

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

I didn't hate "The Village." It wasn't the greatest movie in human history, I fully concede that. But I saw it in the theater, and after it was over I had no urge to demand my money back like I did after I saw "The Ring 2." (Actually in that case, I set the theater on fire. Stupid automatic sprinkler systems.)

Similarly, I didn't hate "Lady in the Water." Caught it on cable, so probably my standards were lower, but even then I can agree that it was a failure. But it still had atmosphere, and Paul Giamatti's performance was solid, and plus it was a story I hadn't seen before, so that was all more or less okay.

I haven't seen "The Happening" or the new one, which I understand are off by themselves on the badness scale. Maybe if I had my opinion of the other films would be tainted.

But no, seriously. "Unbreakable" is just a damn fine film. I haven't re-watched it recently enough to get specific, but maybe I'll pull out my DVD of it tonight and give it another go, then report back.

(Also, I didn't think "Signs" was entirely terrible. Liked it less than "The Village," more than "Lady in the Water." You know, just in case you between here and Twitter you don't have enough reasons to hate me today.)

Last edited by Jeffery Harrell (2010-07-02 20:44:27)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

I don't understand how it's possible not to hate THE VILLAGE. It teased a great but false premise, and gave us a stupider one in its place -- and one which, like his high point SIXTH SENSE, he ripped off from a kid's story. Maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with it if the idea it had advertised with hadn't been so fucking awesome and now wasted forever.

SIGNS was alright but got self-destructively stupid at the end. LADY IN THE WATER was unforgivably dull and self-indulgent.

A douchebag film reviewer who's always wrong about everything? Really?

A writer whose currently-misunderstood work will actually become the salvation of all mankind, played by Shyamalan himself? REALLY?

I'm sorry, no. Fuck you Shyamalan.

As I say, I have no particular quarrel with UNBREAKABLE -- it's not as good as SIXTH SENSE but it didn't make me fear for the worst the way SIGNS started to. But it's not enough to exonerate him from the rest of this. He's done.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

I don't understand how it's possible not to hate THE VILLAGE.

At the risk of sounding condescending, it entertained me. Again, I'm not saying it was great. I'm not even going so far as to say it was objectively good. But I preferred the experience of watching it to the experience of watching, say, "300." No accounting for taste, I guess.

I do not, however, remember anything about the advertising. Maybe I'd be right there with you if I did.

LADY IN THE WATER was unforgivably dull and self-indulgent.

I agree with every word in that sentence except "unforgivably." Again, recall that I didn't pay money to watch it. I probably would have been harder-assed if I had.

As I say, I have no particular quarrel with UNBREAKABLE -- it's not as good as SIXTH SENSE…

See, we're in opposite places on that, I think. I have no quarrel with "The Sixth Sense," but I didn't think it was as good as "Unbreakable." The fact that I have never seen "The Sixth Sense" again except for that once in the theater and that I own and re-watch "Unbreakable" regularly if not exactly often sums up, I think, the difference in my opinions. Neither sucks, but I prefer one decisively.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Just so Jeffrey's got a wingman on this one, I liked The Village quite a bit, and the "twist" had already been spoiled for me before I ever saw it, too.  There are a lot of great moments in there, not just scary ones but nice character touches as well.   

Like Signs and Sixth Sense, The Village showcases Shyamalan's nifty skill at creating terror from the simplest of everyday situations.    (Signs was pretty good until the lame ending, so I put it in third place among those three movies. )

Have never watched all of Unbreakable - apparently it's about comic books and my disinterest in that topic is already on record -  so I've got no real opinion about that one, and haven't seen any of M's other movies at all.    But Sixth Sense and The Village are both right up there on my list of nifty thrillers.

I think Shyamalan's got serious skills as a filmmaker, but I haven't made enough of a study to have a real opinion on how he's become such a pariah.*     If whatever's been getting in his way can be gotten out of the way, I think he's got plenty of potential to knock another home run.

*But my first recommendation is the same as most people's - enough with the cameos.

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Like Signs and Sixth Sense, The Village showcases Shyamalan's nifty skill at creating terror from the simplest of everyday situations.

Yes, exactly. He's got something in common with Steven Moffat in that (shut up, I'm a geek), I think. He can find suspense or fear in mundanity.

My favorite moment in "The Village," and frankly probably the moment that takes it from "okay" to "not bad" on my personal scale, is when William Hurt's character takes Bryce Dallas Howard's character into the shed. "Try your best not to scream," he says. It's just a great moment.

As for "Unbreakable," let me just say this. There are only three movies in the vaguely defined "comic-book genre" that I would classify as really very good: The original "Superman," "The Dark Knight" and "Unbreakable." It's the comic book movie for people who have absolutely no interest in comic book movies.

It is, shall we say, deliberately paced, though. Don't watch it right after downing four shots of espresso.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

DorkmanScott wrote:

I don't know what remained and what was cut in the film, but I know you could cut Aunt Wu, cut Omashu and Bumi, and probably (though not without some difficulty later) cut Jet. You could also cut Haru and the Earth Kingdom prisoners, but they might be useful in terms of condensing the story by having Admiral Zhao be there, instead of Admiral Sulu.

All that is gone, yes.

What you cannot cut are the Kyoshi warriors, the Southern Air Temple and Northern Air Temple (although you could probably combine them and have all the necessary events take place at one or the other), meeting Avatar Roku, and the events at the North Pole.

The Kyoshi warriors and Suki (and maybe Bumi) have been moved to the second film. We have the South Pole and Air Temple, Aang discovering Earth Benders are being oppressed in a village and starting an uprising... and then a voice over saying they're moving north and doing the same thing and that's it for all their travels towards the North Pole. We do get a detour where Aang goes alone to the Northern Air Temple and gets captured so the Blue Spirit can rescue him, and Avatar Roku has been replaced by a Dragon in the Sprit World.

Three hours would be tough, but it would be doable. The bigger issue is having time for each character to be a character rather than a pawn moved around making plot happen. That's what you really need the time for.

That's what's missing, more then anything plot related. Zuko is the only real character who is interesting in this version, while the rest are treated so badly they even use voice over to tell us Sokka falls for the Princess instead of trusting us the way the cartoon did.

I write stories! With words!
http://www.asstr.org/~Invid_Fan/

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Ever since watching The Happening sometime last year, I have been lobbying that we should do the whole Shyamalan ouvre. But I think we should do it backwards, starting with The Happening (or Airbender, now) and working back towards Sixth Sense. Then we we at least artificially create a positive arc for ourselves and don't end the ordeal suicidal.

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

The Happening was my favorite comedy of 2008.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Kyle Monroe wrote:

The Happening was my favorite comedy of 2008.

Honestly, I am so fuking sick of this joke.

On a more related note, never watched the series, haven't seen the movie, probably will only go for the visuals.

ZangrethorDigital.ca

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

The Happening was way more of a comedy to me, I think it was my favorite one the year it came out.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

BrianFinifter wrote:

How the fuck did Shyamalan make one awesome movie and one pretty good one?

Because in Sixth Sense he had

a) One competent actor that could do his job

b) All other actors were _supposed_ to behave like dazed zombies

c) The whole "everyone behaves like dazed zombies" (I dunno what shamalama does to suck all soul out of his actors, he may be some dark side entity using this filmmaking schtick as an excuse to soulsuck) works great in that movie

d) It had "teh twist ending": Which he then FORCE-GLUED and DUCT-TAPED onto every other movie, with the problems of d1) They were crappy "twists"* and d2) every now EXPECTS the twists so they aren't twists any more and lose ALL value

Basically, Shamalama's original success was a fluke. The only other SHamalama film I actually kind of like is The Village (many will hate me for this) coz in that film, even though the first twist can be seen a mile away (there are no monsters, duh) the second twist (..and it's not 1880) then may surprise at least SOME, to deliver an actual surprise to those people. Maybe. Does it make much sense? Not really, but still, it appeals to me on some level, I don't know why.

But poor Shama keeps doing what he thinks works for absolutely all the wrong reasons. And when he's handed actors that actually needs to be *directed* .... it all just implodes into nihilistic dazed zombie hell.

/Z

/Z

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Jeffery Harrell wrote:

"Unbreakable" was that good.

That's so odd. To me "Unbreakable" is the most boring piece of sh%t ever commited to celluloid.

/Z

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

DorkmanScott wrote:

And I don't think the guy is lying. I think he genuinely remembers things going the way he tells it.

The would be the Cartman Complex.

*for reference watch South Park Episode "Fishsticks"

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

Seeing it tonight because this chick is gorgeous. God I hope it's hard to pay attention to.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

I just saw this because my girl wanted to.  Holy shit was this movie bad!  Like, I can't even describe how bad it was!


- Branco

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

*vomits*

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Airbender: how not to adapt a series

I haven't seen it but i hear the crew had a good time:

"Wondering what the $150 million budget went into? We heard from a crew member on the set that Shyamalan had actually built a fancy-ass bar, on set, for the crew’s drinking needs."

Thumbs up Thumbs down