Creators that ruined their own works — Page 2

There is no such thing as a creator ruining his or her work, from the standpoint that later works do not invalidate earlier works. I don't care how shitty the Simpsons has become, nothing will EVER change how amazing the first 8 or 9 seasons were.

Of course, Lucas is a different story, given how he is trying to erase history, but the talented people here like Harmy and dark_jedi are doing everything they can to thwart him.

Therefore, this thread is still dumb.

Well, that's your opinion. I still think that a later work can nullify any good the previous work had. I don't care how stupid this thread is, I have the right to talk about it.

generalfrevious said:

Well, that's your opinion.

Just ignore him.

Going back on topic, even though M. Night Shyalaman never made a franchise, I  think The Happening and The Last Airbender has ruined the Sixth Sense for me, even though the only Shyalaman film I have ever seen was Signs, and that had a very well known and very reviled plot twist. He went from "the next Hitchcock" to "the next Ed Wood" in less than a decade. Even his alma mater NYU is embarrassed of him.

How can the Sixth Sense be ruined for me if I've never seen it?

If I know that the same man who made the Villiage made this movie, am I really going to enjoy it knowing he never made anything better than this movie, and that it may not be as good as it was considered back in 1999? I'm sure some people wouldn't be bothered by this, but unfortunately I would. 

Look at The Matrix, for example. You might enjoy it in spite of the two sequels that followed, or you might think there is no merit in watching it because what followed in the story taints what came before. Now I have actually seen The Matrix after Reloaded/Revolutions came out, and I guess I enjoyed it, but I don't view it as people viewed it back in '99 as a revolution in cinema (like The Sixth Sense). I see it as the one accidental masterpiece from a certified hack.

In other words, the later reputation of the director seeps in to the original great work.

I think I might have typed "Signs" up above when I meant to type "The Village," especially given my last post.  And by my last post, I mean the one directly above this one.

That was intentional; those are just examples of bad M Night movies, although I thought signs was okay back in 2002, before I developed better taste in movies and Mel Gibson was shown to be a militant anti-Semitic racist.

The Galacticans were wiped out when the Golgafrinchams arrived.

TV's Frink said:

I think I might have typed "Signs" up above when I meant to type "The Village," especially given my last post.  And by my last post, I mean the one directly above this one.

generalfrevious said:

That was intentional; those are just examples of bad M Night movies, although I thought signs was okay back in 2002, before I developed better taste in movies and Mel Gibson was shown to be a militant anti-Semitic racist.

I'm sorry to keep arguing with myself, but...

generalfrevious said:

even though the only Shyalaman film I have ever seen was Signs, and that had a very well known and very reviled plot twist.

Yeah, there was no plot twist in Signs.  So I call shenanigans on myself.

Aliens turn out to be allergic to water in Signs. Frink may not call that a plot twist, but it is still a stupid ending. Same with the Villiage, I haven't seen that film because I learned about the plot twist in that movie, where it turns out to be the present day, but they pretend to be in the 19th century for some asinine reason. And don't forget the self-indulgent cameos in every movie- hell, even shyamalan himself told the main character in Signs how to defeat the aliens!

Jim Henson let Lucas near Labyrinth.

An alien race that has a lethal relationship with H2O coming to a planet of mostly water and harvesting creatures that are mostly water and not wearing waterproofs was daft though.

generalfrevious said:

Aliens turn out to be allergic to water in Signs. Frink may not call that a plot twist

We're talking about M Night - of course that's not a plot twist.

^^That's Mel Gibson? Looks more like Homer Simpson and Bill Dauterive after they stepped into the transporter together.

Akwat Kbrana said:

And don't forget the self-indulgent cameos in every movie- hell, even shyamalan himself told the main character in Signs how to defeat the aliens!

Why is this a problem? And why would it "ruin" his movies? Alfred Hitchcock gave himself cameos in most (or all?) of his movies. Does anyone think that that "ruined" them? Peter Jackson gave himself cameos in all three LOTR films. Does that detract from your enjoyment of them?

Seriously, dude, sometimes it seems like you're just looking for things to gripe about...

The thing with Hitchcock cameos is that they were short and unobtrusive- usually it was just Hitch walking across the street in the background. He didn't become a main character in his stories, as M Night did in Signs or Lady In The Water, for self-indulgent reasons. Peter Jackson's cameos in LOTR was the same as Hitchcock, they were more like Easter eggs than a full walk-on role. I have no problems with background cameos like that.

Having Shyalaman tell Gibson's character an implied weakness for the aliens (and the fact that his character in the movie accidentally ran over Gibson's wife in the movie) seems a little narcissistic to me, as if the director entered the movie himself and told the characters what to do. That kind of ruins suspension of disbelief for me IMO.