Okay, this is one twist I didn't see coming. · 11:39pm Aug 12th, 2014
Apparently, if the writer of this post is to be believed, M. Night Shyamalan isn't the person responsible for the massive pile of suck known as The Last Airbender (or at least, he's not the main person at fault). Now, I don't know if this person really was working on-set at the time, but the claims certainly appeal to my cynical nature, so I almost want them to be true. I'll let you read the whole thing on your own so you can decide for yourself, but I'd just like to highlight this part:
The actual producers didn't know what they were dealing with and were only interested in a quick buck. Bryke [show creator Bryan Konietzko] and M Night gave up on the film around the same time for same reasons. The other people working on the film were a pain to deal with and Nickelodeon themselves only wanted the final product as quickly as possible and the money it would presumably make them.
.....crap, now I can't hate Shamalan.....
It's plausible, but given Shyamalan's track record (only two good films out of how many?) unlikely. I suspect it's more likely that executive meddling made something that was already doomed to mediocrity into an unsalvageable train wreck. so not the difference between a good movie and a bad one, but maybe the difference between a mediocre one and a bad one.
that said i would have taken mediocre over what we got.
If true it shows a lot working against the film but I'm not absolving Shamalan of his well deserved blame. He may not of gotten actors he wanted, but those actors are not complete amateurs and its the directors job to make sure they are not as boring and emotionless as a plank of wood. The writing may not have been what he hoped, but at some point the director has to say enough is enough when you get dialogue as bad as what was presented to us. Plenty of performances have been improvised, so why couldn't he do the same with the dullness and perplexingly worded script? The excuses given in that comment would explain why the movie had less than impressive special effects and action sequences, and also why the story was clunky, but it does not explain why there is an absolute lack of any humor or fun in the movie. Those problems would have made the movie less, not the absolute train wreck that it was.
Further proof that Executives Ruin Everything Ever
2365633 - Presumably, the explanation for the complete lack of humor and/or fun is as follows: Shyamalan had ceased to care about the project, but he was contractually obligated to finish making it and help promote it, which made it impossible for him to quit outright (at least, not without forking over a massive amount of money to the very executives who destroyed his initial enthusiasm for the movie). When the creator ceases to give a fuck about the creation, the results are usually godawful.*
* Most of the exceptions to this generalization can be found in world rock and roll, where not giving a fuck is often the whole point, and the results are usually less than five minutes long.
Woah. Trippy. So you mean the worst movie ever that was NOT directed by Uwe Boll was NOT in fact by M Night Shyamalan either?
My mind is officially blown!
2365663 Shhh! Every time someone says "Executive Meddling", a pony grows a pair of wings.
2365758
Ceasing to care sounds like a very good reason to blame a director.
I'd believe that, but Shyamalan has had far too many stinker films for me to assume that this one wasn't significantly his fault.
2365852 - It is when executives insist on changing your vision and refuse to buy out your contract so you can quit.
2365937
Make excuses all you want, but we all have had or currently have jobs we don't wanna do and hate our bosses, but I'll be fucked if I'm not responsible for how well I do that job if I didn't do the best I could despite not wanting to. If the movie was just egh or bad, fine as long as we could tell there was effort. The product we got was worse than scy-fi channel movies.
2365626
Personally my dislike of him comes from having seen what he can do when he actually puts effort in, (ie: sixth sense, unbreakable) and want more of that, but keep getting movies that are decidedly lesser in quality. (ie: every other movie of his I've seen.)
not so much hate as just disappointment in repeated mediocrity.
2366400 I absolutely love Unbreakable!
2366400 - Personally, I think it's entirely possible that he only had 2.75 really good movies in him (I count the first 3/4 of Signs as partial "good movie" credit, because I'm generous). It's not unheard of for people to completely exhaust their creativity before they lose interest in the creative process.
2365633 Actually the way I remember it they made a big deal about casting a complete newcomer to acting for Aang. I think he was supposed to be a good martial artist maybe, but he literally was new. Then again I never saw that obvious trainwreck so I don't even know if he was the main problem or not.
2368838
Yeah he is a fresh actor, but bad acting wasn't the main downfall. Characters that are as interesting as watching paint dry was the problem. The show was based around fun and humorous and kids behaving like kids. That's what made the serious moments more powerful was the contrast. The movie forgot to add fun and humor so we are left with downer scene after downer scene, and even managed to make bending boreing. Nostalgie critic does a great review of it on his website.
2368894 - Do keep in mind that Shyamalan was not the film's editor. If you read the original link, it appears that any moments of levity were left on the cutting room floor, likely at the behest of the film's producers, who apparently assumed that the action and martial arts in the show were its only appeal.