Talk:M. Night Shyamalan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

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. -- 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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. - M. Night Shyamalan: Biography and Much More From

That source DOES NOT contain the stated remark.

Shyamalan said he had originally conceived the film as part of a - 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. -- 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. -- 01:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


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)


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. -- thunderboltza.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? -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:46, 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)
Have added Tamil pronounciation for his name.Moulee (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Also edited his birth place, according to reference #2 it states that he was born in JIPMER, Pondicherry. So i removed Mahe from his birth place as JIPMER is located in Pondicherry not Mahe. Moulee (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Some one with the IP address has undone the changes i made, and i dont see any proper explanation, please let others know why u removed the pronounciation i made also register yourself so as others can know your identity.Moulee (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
laughable!! you don't see any explanation?? huh!! to be more clear, his language is Malayalam and its the only language script should be displayed. (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Check the reference before u edit. His mother is Tamil, and before editing it again register with wiki.Moulee (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't matter what his mother is.... in indian family, the person(Manoj Shyamalan) will speak a language what his father spoke(i.e. Malayalam)..the second important thing is he don't know to speak Tamil (according to this reliable source), then whats the point in adding Tamil script??. (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say that we dont have to conclude if one follows what the father speaks or mother speaks or which culture they follow, the reference you gave says that "He cant speak Tamil properly" it doesnt mean he can not at all speak Tamil, and it didnt tell anything bout if he can speak Malayalam. It doesnt matter if Shyamalan can speak Malayalam or Tamil, his parents are from both the side and it is not wrong to write his name in both the language. And as per wiki policy let us not haveoriginal research Moulee (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2009 (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.

Someone has removed the IPA guide to pronouncing his name in American English, the language he uses professionally. However, whoever removed this didn't bother to post anything here on the discussion page. As people often wonder how to (approximately) pronounce his name, I'm re-adding the info. This is taken from the way his name is pronounced in movie trailers. In the future, if someone wishes to modify or remove this, please first start a discussion here on this page and then wait some time for responses before any changes are made. Interlingua 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't use helpme tags on articles, please. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many ottersOne hammerHELP) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
An user with IP has added the Tamil pronunciation again, also if someone have disagreement in having the Tamil script in pronunciation please discuss before reverting/removing it. Do not remove the script without discussion.Moulee (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"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. 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.

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. 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.

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)

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] going as far to claim the film as Shyamalan's finest film to date and the best "bedtime-story" since Princess Bride. - "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 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. -- 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) 00:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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. 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." - "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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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! -- 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
WHAT A TWEEST! -- 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.


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 (ridiculous to cite that - it's a mirror of Wikipedia!!), (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, 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)

Alleged 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


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)

The ref above states that he became a US citizen, but does not state when. It also does not state whether or not he retained his Indian citizenship. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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
Domestic: $100,000
+ Foreign: N/A
= Worldwide: N/A
  • Wide Awake
Budget: $6,000,000
Domestic: $282,175
+ Foreign: N/A
= Worldwide: $282,175
  • The Sixth Sense
Budget: $40,000,000
Domestic: $293,506,292
+ Foreign: $379,300,000
= Worldwide: $672,806,292
  • Unbreakable
Budget: $73,200,000
Domestic: $95,011,339
+ Foreign: $153,106,782
= Worldwide: $248,118,121
  • Signs
Budget: $70,200,000
Domestic: $227,966,634
+ Foreign: $180,281,283
= Worldwide: $408,247,917
  • The Village
Budget: $71,600,000
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

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. 03:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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 (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. 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wide Awake not mentioned

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

Fixed 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. (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 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."

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 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Better to simply remove the spoiler, which I will. DFS (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I agree. The paragraph on plagiarism should be stricken entirely. Accusation is not proof; and accusations of plagiarism are not uncommon in Hollywood, especially when a movie (or a moviemaker) rakes in some cash. Spielberg was accused of stealing the idea for E.T. from an obscure play called "Loki from Maldamar" or some such. J.K. Rowling had to fight off accusations of plagiarism from the crazy "Larry Potter and the Muggles" woman (which seems to have been a hoax all along). Unfounded allegations and rumors don't have much place alongside valid criticism. -- (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbreakable box office

I have restored intro summery re: Unbreakable performing poorly. Statement is summery of article... namely the section: "With a budget of $73.2 million, the movie failed to make a net profit domestically with a total box office gross of $95 million[17]" This conforms with WP:LEAD. $95 million domestic is "poor" since break-even was around $150-$200 million + or - advertising (mover makers only get 1/2 the box-office collected, other half goes to the theater owners). The total worldwide take of 249 million may even be a close thing as far as making a profit, same problem over seas. (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to support your position. Because by your login almost no movies make any money. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to see a citation here. My understanding is that the percentage that the exhibitor (i.e., the cinema) receives is on a sliding scale. The first week, something like 90% of the profits go to the distributor (e.g., Paramount, Fox, Universal, etc). It's hardly a 50-50 split in every case, as you suggest, and in any case, your personal anecdote that "well, it's 50%" isn't a valid cite. -- (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the portion of the ticket sales that go to the movie producers is (approximately) more like 80 percent, not 50 percent. More importantly, is there really any need to state the movie failed to produce a net profit "domestically?" The movie definitely was substantially profitable, when international box office receipts are factored in. The concept of "domestic proft" strikes me as essentially meaningless, and likely the product of the hostility this director has born the brunt of in recent years (albeit perhaps due to the extent to which he was previously over-hyped; the dominant mass media is rarely one to find take middling position in such matters, or so I think its reasonable to state). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

The NYT piece is worth including, I think, perhaps to give some balance to the criticism section which currently ends with the plagiarism taint. Some highlights from the NYT article:
He wanted to market “Unbreakable” as a comic-book movie — the tale of an unlikely superhero — but Disney executives insisted on portraying it as a spooky thriller, like “The Sixth Sense.”
"That moment may have been the biggest mistake that I have to undo over 10 years so the little old lady doesn’t go, ‘Oh, he’s the guy who makes the scary movies with a twist.’ ”
He also has not been able to undo his reputation in Hollywood as a talented filmmaker who will not play by studio rules. After the success of “The Sixth Sense,” he criticized Disney executives, dared to compare his talent to Steven Spielberg’s and Alfred Hitchcock’s and has steadfastly asserted his reputation as an outsider by refusing to move from Philadelphia to Hollywood.
But Mr. Shyamalan, who says he has become press shy, offers no apologies and believes that some of the criticism about him was largely based on his refusal to accept Hollywood norms.
- PrBeacon (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is he Catholic or Hindu?

Te article doesn't specify...Shark113 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaaand who cares? --FilmFan69 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
A biography should be a comprehensive account of a person's life; a person's religion is often a major aspect of their life. As such, info on a subject's religion should (where known), be included in bios. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
He is a Hindu and a Malayali. (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit. Citation Needed.Threedots dead (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
He is a Hindu. He has generally been private about his religious beliefs, but he has talked about them more since he took on 'Avatar: The Last Airbender', which obviously was heavily influenced by Eastern philosophy. Here are a couple of quotes from him explaining why he signed on to the movie:
"It has martial arts and spirituality and the supernatural, and it has Buddhist philosophy and Hindu philosophy - really, everything I talk about - all in one movie."(
"I always wanted to do a fantasy franchise like 'Harry Potter,' and 'Airbender' is perfect given it has elements of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy." ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Neither of those quotes in fact say he is Hindu. He may have respect for those cultures as he himself ethnically shares a cultural heritage with them, but not be a practitioner of those faiths. You need a specific source that states his faith if you want to cite it, not just speculation based on statements concerning which faiths he finds interesting.21:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Filmograyph table

I feel the Oscar/BAFTA/Golden Globe nominations and awards table rather superfluous and unnecessary. Especially considering when it is only The Sixth Sense which received 12 out of 13 nominations. A simple list with this noted down would look better, anyone else agree? Feudonym (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Filmography section. The entire article is a "filmography" so this section was redundant, and pretty worthless since it contains a mostly empty table of equally redundant information. (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed a newer redundant Filmography that again was full of redundant entries such as repeating "director, writer, producer". Newer table only organized cameo rolls. This article IS a filmography and has a filmography template at the bottom. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
All I did was table the information that was already there. To be clear, this article is not a filmography; it is a biographical encyclopedia article (Please see: Category: Filmographies for a list of articles which are filmographies). It is standard practice to include a filmography in biographical articles on actors and filmmakers, to wit, some of the roles he has had were not "cameos". If you feel the filmography is unnecessary, we can discuss it, but there's no reason to be a dick about it.  Chickenmonkey  19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did anyone blame you for making a table out of it? The list under "Movies" in this BIO is a filmography and it is complete (unless MNS has made some movies I never heard of), and takes up 2 thirds of this article. Does this article need a separate redundant filmography? no. Is the long list under "Movies" redundant since it repeats other articles? yes. Should an overly long redundant "Movies" section be replaced with a filmography table? I think so. Re-labeled "Movies" as "Filmography" since that is what it is and removed redundant "Filmography". We can talk about deleting the long "Filmography" and and replacing it with a short table seen here[8], similar to articles like Oliver Stone (or feel free to be bold and do it). Thanks for calling me a DICK by the way, such courtesy is always appreciated in Wikipedia. SomeRandomFilmArticleEditor (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize, though your tone could use some work (mine, too, I'm sure).  Chickenmonkey  20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could the Filmograph Table and Critical reception table be merged, I think it would save space. BerserkerBen (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo Hijinks

It's painfully obvious that the main photo of M. Night is the same photo as the one later on in the article with him and Mark Wahlberg, except that someone cloned out Wahlberg (and very badly too). Can't we do better than a Photoshop hack-job for the lead photo in an article? (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Tim

Latin English

Firstly, I've debolded the term "Latin English" in the confusing morass of versions of this bloke's name in the lead paragraph. Given that we usually bold the article title and any variants around this point, it seems, er, "unusual" (struggling to be polite here) to bold a little technical definition as if were also his name.

Secondly, what precisely does the term "Latin English" mean at this point? I mean, just before there it tells you it's also Tamil: மனோஜ் நெல்லியட்டு ஷ்யாமளன் so, great, you can click "Tamil" and be told all about that. Marvellous. However, with "Latin English" you are left on your own as there's nothing to click and we don't define it. How can someone's name be in a language? An alphabet is more likely but we don't say that. I'm guessing that it was someone being clever with some kind of shorthand that does have a real linguistic or typographical meaning ... but to me, taking a me as a sort of generic average uninformed reader, it's pretty meaningless - indeed it seems self-contradictory like "dry wet" or "German English" or "slow fast" - what exactly is a "Latin English"? If we know, we should tell people by linking to the article which explains it, and if we do not know, then the term should be removed. Thoughts, please? Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. After reading WP:ENGLISH, I believe all of the "variations" should probably be removed. I doubt they are "the general usage in English reliable sources". While WP:ENGLISH does say, "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is widely known," I believe that applies to "common" and "widely known" English names. I'm sure he's well-known by each of those names in various countries (with various languages) around the world, but this is the English language wikipedia. I may be completely wrong, though.  Chickenmonkey  22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDb ratings graph

The IMDb ratings graph, File:M NIGHT IMDB.pdf, is problematic in several ways. IMDb ratings are not reliable, in any Wikipedia sense as they demonstrate both selection bias (limited to viewers on the net and, further, to those who use IMDb) and self-selection bias (limited to those who actively decide to vote on a particular film). It's "SLOP"-y Next, by adding it under "Criticism and controversy", it is made clear that the intent is to demonstrate dropping ratings for his films (which may also explain why it starts with Shyamalan's third film). Additionally, there is a typo in the graph. Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


Chandrasekar, Shan ( - )

Coming from a family of broadcasters, filmmakers and music producers in India, Shan Chandraseker took his Masters Degree at McGill University in Montreal.

His first venture in broadcasting began in 1971 when he provided television programming to Toronto’s relatively new South Asia community on Rogers Cable.

In 1975, Shan launched the first over-the-air South Asian programming on CITY-TV. In 1979, his South Asian programming was moved to CFMT-TV, Canada’s first Multi-Cultural TV station, and continued on that station for 15 years.

In 1993, he formed ATN – the Asian Television Network - with a Specialty Channel on Cable TV across Canada. The ATN group of companies, all to do with the Asian community, includes an Entertainment Unit promoting concerts featuring Asian talent.

With the advent of digital Specialty Channels, ATN received licences for five channels - SATV -ZEE-TV – B4U – Alpha Punjabi – ARY – Tamil - each in a different Indian language of the South Asian community of 1.5 million living across Canada.

As founder and President & CEO of ATN, Shan Chandraseker is committed to the people of South Asia living in Canada. He is also dedicated to the Toronto community as a whole and has served on the Boards of York University Foundation, the Multicultural History of Canada, University of Toronto, Scarborough Hospital Foundation and the Royal Conservatory of Music, and is currently on the Boards of the Canadian Club, the Advisory Board of York University, Canadian Women in Communications and the Specialty & Pay Television Section of the Canadian Broadcasters Association.

The shares of his company, Asian Television International Limited, are listed on the Canadian Venture Exchange TSX under the symbol YTN.

In 2004, Shan Chandraseker was inducted into the CAB Hall of Fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goyya (talkcontribs) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Little

How come there is nothing here about Stuart Little? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadtriyama (talkcontribs) 12:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(Sharadtriyama (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC))


This section has such poor sources it appears to be nothing more than a jab at the subject. There is no information on the lawsuit, and the other claim is nothing more substantial than a comment made by a publisher. If the lawsuit had a source which could yield information as to its status then the section could be said to provide some information to the reader. If there is no notable claim of plagiarism against the subject there should be no section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talkcontribs) 02:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I added more references, softened the tone to allegations rather than facts, and added that Shyamalan's company and Disney issued statements calling the accusations meritless. I couldn't find any status results, but since there was an actual lawsuit filed, there should be some mention in reference to it. (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Very important information - Indian citizenship

User Saccyind, who has a history of making disruptive edits related to nationality, has added a link to a document on Indian citizenship, which makes to mention of Shyamalan anywhere, with the edit description Very Important Information. I would like to see some explanation of this links relevance in any way, let alone why it is 'Very Important'. Euchrid (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't bother with Saccyind. Just revert. Saccyind's only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be emphasize national identities, usually in a pro-American manner. It's a wonder he's not indef blocked, having already been blocked for this behavior. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:M. Night Shyamalan 2008 - still 40580 crop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:M. Night Shyamalan 2008 - still 40580 crop.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:M. Night Shyamalan 2008 - still 40580 crop.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why retain information about pseudo-awards?

It is ridiculous to accept non-awards such as the "Golden Raspberry" in the midst of the listing of actual awards. It is not a neutral treatment of the subject, and merely invites flames. Negative "awards" should not be considered authoritative or informed sources about the subject's work. (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wayward Pines

Wayward Pines redirects to M. Night Shyamalan (non-redirect link), but it's really a book and its author is Blake Crouch and not Mr. Shyamalan. -Mardus (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

What are "contemporary supernatural plots"?

From the intro:

"...M. Night Shyamalan, is... known for making movies with contemporary supernatural plots."

If "contemporary supernatural plots" are a thing, then they're very much not a well-known thing.

Best, (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alleged American citizenship

The subject was born in India and is most certainly an Indian citizen. However, there is no mention in the article of naturalization as an American citizen. This is required, with citation of the fact, if the article is to make this claim in the lead sentence or the categories that the subject is "American". And even then he would be a dual citizen. How he would be described would depend on the relationship between when he became notable and when he was naturalized. If he became notable before naturalization, per WP:OPENPARA, we would continue to describe him as Indian. American colonization of individuals of other nationalities is uncool. Skyerise (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The subject was born in India and is most certainly an Indian citizen - Source to back up this assertion? American colonization of individuals of other nationalities is uncool. - lol - America is the melting pot/salad bowl, sorry. Guy was raised in America, became notable in America and almost certainly considers himself an American. -- (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)