Glass by M Night

[TheButcher]

Bleeding Cool 05/30/2013:
M. Night Shyamalan Says An Unbreakable Sequel Is Getting Closer But A Tiny Film Is Probably Next


Where M. Night Shyamalan Went Wrong: Unbreakable

After Earth, the new movie from director M. Night Shyamalan arrives in theaters this weekend…but you wouldn’t know it’s one of his films by watching the trailer. The filmmaker’s name is almost completely absent from the trailers and advertisements, and all this week we here at Cinema Blend are trying to figure out where it all went wrong. First up we have Eric, who explains how 2000’s Unbreakable was the movie that set Shyamalan on the wrong path.

M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable is a very good movie. The story is subtle and the script has a great pace and structure. The performances, particularly those by stars Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, are engaging and thought-provoking. The direction is stylish and full of daring and attention-grabbing camerawork that adds to every scene. It’s an even more interesting to look back on now, as it was released in the earliest years of the 21st century superhero boom. It showed great promise from a filmmaker that knocked everybody’s socks off with his first feature…that is, until the final few minutes.

While it was the killer twist at the end of The Sixth Sense that first made both critics and audiences fall in love with Shyamalan, it was the cheap knock-off twist at the end of Unbreakable that was the definitive warning shot that should have told audiences to be wary of overpraising the newcomer writer/director.

[TheButcher]

Dream Sequels: Patton Oswalt's Unbreakable 2

[TheButcher]

Dream Sequels: Patton Oswalt's Unbreakable 2


The Importance of UNBREAKABLE In A Pre-Marvel Cinematic Universe
Where does M. Night Shyamalan's comic book movie stand now?

[Ribbons]

I like Unbreakable a lot but have no desire to see a sequel. It felt like a pretty self-contained story to me and turning it into a franchise would kind of ruin that. So Patton Oswalt is a moron and can go die in a fire and also I hate him, is what I'm saying.

[Peven]

I like Unbreakable a lot but have no desire to see a sequel. It felt like a pretty self-contained story to me and turning it into a franchise would kind of ruin that. So Patton Oswalt is a moron and can go die in a fire and also I hate him, is what I'm saying.

i disagree with Patton on his idea for a sequel to Unbreakable, but anyone who hates Patton Oswalt is lacking at least part of a soul

[TheButcher]

spoilers

[TheBaxter]

spoilers

i didn't read past the Split spoilers, but as far as an unbreakable sequel, i would've liked to have gotten that film about 15 years ago. the version of a Shyamalan film we'd get now, i'm not sure i want to see that.

[so sorry]

Anna to get a back onna topic, eh? My problems with a the Unna'breakable, they are a numerous, eh? But a to just a name a the few...

Firstly, right offa the bat, you gotta the goddamn title screen that say something like "Every year, 17 million funny books, they sold inna the U.S., eh?" anna right there, inna the first 15 seconds of a the movie, you gotta alla the women inna the audience saying "holy crappa... you take a me to a the goddamn FUNNY BOOK a movie!?!?" Shyamalan, that putz, he alienates a half a the audience right there anna gets a the other half inna trouble with a their mates, thus impacting a the remaining enna'joyment of a the picture, eh?

Second, you gotta the Shyamalan, who knocked it outta the park onna his first outing with a the Sixth Sense, but he's a the goddamn one-trick pony, eh? He's a no Spielberg, that's a for sure... Unna'like a the Spielberg, he TELLS us everything inna the Unna'breakable, inna'stead of a showing us, eh?

For example, you gotta the Sammy J. character, anna through a the whole goddamn movie, he's a like a the goddamn Chatty-Cathy, "Joe Expository", no? Giving a the goddamn Bruce's character a the goddamn "Funny Books 101" lessons anna such, even a going so far as a to say "Look atta alla the super villians, eh? The artists, they draw them with a the big heads anna bulging eyes anna such, no?" as iffa we dinna notice that a the Sammy J, he's a gotta that crazy hair-do anna the bug-eyes, eh?

Anna then a you gotta the whole thing with a the water, no? Again, you gotta the Sammy J. saying "oh, the water, she's a like a your Kryptonite, eh? Alla the superheroes, they gotta the weakness, eh?" just inna case a we too stupid to figure it alla out, no? Anna then a we gotta to have a the Bruce say "hmm... when I was a the little kid, I alla'most drowned, eh? Anna I dinna bother to try anna swim ever again!!"

Compare that with a the Chief Brody inna the Jaws, eh? From a the very first a scene with a the character onna the ferry, we can a tell from a his body language anna actions, he donna like a the water, eh? Anna so' s a when a the character, they say "you donna like a the water, eh Chief?" atta that point, we alla'ready know it, eh? Anna the question, she becomes alla humorous a 'cos it's a the yokel-gag of a stating a the obvious inna'stead of a the goddamn expository dialog, no?

Third, once a the goddamn Shyamalan sets uppa the film with alla the expository dialog, he donna make a the biggest pay-off of alla, eh? He tell us plain anna simple that a the villian is a the EXACT OPPOSITE of a the hero, eh? Anna so while a the Bruce, he's unna'breakable, you gotta the Sammy J who's totally breakable, eh? With a the fragile anna brittle bones anna such... anna so's a the final pay-off, she would have a been after explaining a the Kryptonite deal with a the water, he should have a shown a the Sammy J. inna the swimming pool or a the therapy pool atta the hospital or a something, moving alla graceful anna flexible anna free inna the water, doing a the "hydro-weight" training anna such, a 'cos a the water, she is a the only place where his a bones, they donna break anna he can a do things inna the water he just a canna do onna land, eh? Inna the water, he has a the strength anna agility, no? Unna'like a the Bruce, who sink a like a the goddamn rock, no?

Fourth, you gotta the whole idea of a the adult man who dinna notice a before that he's a gotta the super-strength anna such ever before inna his a life? Holy crappa that premise, she is alla kinds of a the stupid, eh? Yes, yes, he says something like "I was alla'ways a the good athlete" anna such but holy crappa! The putz, he suddenly discovers as a the adult he can a bench a like a the 700 lbs with ease, no? You donna think he would have a discovered something like a that earlier inna his a life? Like a say, inna the workout room inna the gym a when he play a the football inna high school anna such?

Goddamn... I could a go on.... but I gotta to catch uppa onna the other threads, eh?

Bumped for ThrowBack Thursday goodness...

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

^^ Soon to be buried by TheButcher's multiple posts about any tiny non news links regarding this film, even stuff like Schyamalan sneezing whilst thinking of Unbreakable 2.

[TheButcher]

/film:
M. Night Shyamalan Controls the Sequel Options to His Films

the director talks about some deals he was wise enough to make early on in his career

[Ribbons]

^^ Soon to be buried by TheButcher's multiple posts about any tiny non news links regarding this film, even stuff like Schyamalan sneezing whilst thinking of Unbreakable 2.

/film:
M. Night Shyamalan Controls the Sequel Options to His Films

the director talks about some deals he was wise enough to make early on in his career

Kirks nailed it!

[Peven]

Anna to get a back onna topic, eh? My problems with a the Unna'breakable, they are a numerous, eh? But a to just a name a the few...

Firstly, right offa the bat, you gotta the goddamn title screen that say something like "Every year, 17 million funny books, they sold inna the U.S., eh?" anna right there, inna the first 15 seconds of a the movie, you gotta alla the women inna the audience saying "holy crappa... you take a me to a the goddamn FUNNY BOOK a movie!?!?" Shyamalan, that putz, he alienates a half a the audience right there anna gets a the other half inna trouble with a their mates, thus impacting a the remaining enna'joyment of a the picture, eh?

Second, you gotta the Shyamalan, who knocked it outta the park onna his first outing with a the Sixth Sense, but he's a the goddamn one-trick pony, eh? He's a no Spielberg, that's a for sure... Unna'like a the Spielberg, he TELLS us everything inna the Unna'breakable, inna'stead of a showing us, eh?

For example, you gotta the Sammy J. character, anna through a the whole goddamn movie, he's a like a the goddamn Chatty-Cathy, "Joe Expository", no? Giving a the goddamn Bruce's character a the goddamn "Funny Books 101" lessons anna such, even a going so far as a to say "Look atta alla the super villians, eh? The artists, they draw them with a the big heads anna bulging eyes anna such, no?" as iffa we dinna notice that a the Sammy J, he's a gotta that crazy hair-do anna the bug-eyes, eh?

Anna then a you gotta the whole thing with a the water, no? Again, you gotta the Sammy J. saying "oh, the water, she's a like a your Kryptonite, eh? Alla the superheroes, they gotta the weakness, eh?" just inna case a we too stupid to figure it alla out, no? Anna then a we gotta to have a the Bruce say "hmm... when I was a the little kid, I alla'most drowned, eh? Anna I dinna bother to try anna swim ever again!!"

Compare that with a the Chief Brody inna the Jaws, eh? From a the very first a scene with a the character onna the ferry, we can a tell from a his body language anna actions, he donna like a the water, eh? Anna so' s a when a the character, they say "you donna like a the water, eh Chief?" atta that point, we alla'ready know it, eh? Anna the question, she becomes alla humorous a 'cos it's a the yokel-gag of a stating a the obvious inna'stead of a the goddamn expository dialog, no?

Third, once a the goddamn Shyamalan sets uppa the film with alla the expository dialog, he donna make a the biggest pay-off of alla, eh? He tell us plain anna simple that a the villian is a the EXACT OPPOSITE of a the hero, eh? Anna so while a the Bruce, he's unna'breakable, you gotta the Sammy J who's totally breakable, eh? With a the fragile anna brittle bones anna such... anna so's a the final pay-off, she would have a been after explaining a the Kryptonite deal with a the water, he should have a shown a the Sammy J. inna the swimming pool or a the therapy pool atta the hospital or a something, moving alla graceful anna flexible anna free inna the water, doing a the "hydro-weight" training anna such, a 'cos a the water, she is a the only place where his a bones, they donna break anna he can a do things inna the water he just a canna do onna land, eh? Inna the water, he has a the strength anna agility, no? Unna'like a the Bruce, who sink a like a the goddamn rock, no?

Fourth, you gotta the whole idea of a the adult man who dinna notice a before that he's a gotta the super-strength anna such ever before inna his a life? Holy crappa that premise, she is alla kinds of a the stupid, eh? Yes, yes, he says something like "I was alla'ways a the good athlete" anna such but holy crappa! The putz, he suddenly discovers as a the adult he can a bench a like a the 700 lbs with ease, no? You donna think he would have a discovered something like a that earlier inna his a life? Like a say, inna the workout room inna the gym a when he play a the football inna high school anna such?

Goddamn... I could a go on.... but I gotta to catch uppa onna the other threads, eh?

Bumped for ThrowBack Thursday goodness...

that must have been a day his nurse was late changing his Depends and he was extra cranky

[so sorry]

Anna to get a back onna topic, eh? My problems with a the Unna'breakable, they are a numerous, eh? But a to just a name a the few...

AT the risk of this thread turning into Dino-against-the-Zone... I wholeheartedly agree with him... I hated this movie.

So this was on HBO last night, and I decided to rewatch it, having only seen it once, many many years ago.

My shortest re-review:
I didn't hate it (like I said I did oh those many years ago). But I didn't like it either.

My medium sized re-review:
Like pretty much all M Night films I've seen, I have numerous problems with his movie logic (suspension of disbelief in effect, but he still manages to push me over the edge).

My longer re-review:
For example, the "kryptonite" effect that water has on My Glass and David. Um, guess what fellas? WE ALL FUCKING DROWN IN WATER. ITS NOT YOUR PERSONAL KYPTONITE, ITS THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE'S KRYPTONITE.
And this notion that Mr Glass is somehow traveling the world causing massive casualty disasters? So his plan all along was to keep killing people until one of them proved unkillable? And he managed to find this person in his own fucking neighborhood after all that? Too much for me to swallow. And like Fievel said above, the idea that David's superpowers weren't noticed by him for his entire life is also a tough pill to swallow. PERHAPS what M Night was trying to get at was David's powers didn't really manifest themselves until he emerged from the train crash, and talking to Mr Exposition opened his mind up to his powers. That would have been more plausible but it wasn't explained that way. And last but not least, the bizarrely abrupt ending, complete with a TV cop-drama ending credits telling me what happened to the main characters....uber cheesy and felt like he didn't really know how to end the movie and ran out of time. There's a link in this thread somehwere that talks about an alternate ending that seems like it would have been a better fit, but feels like M Night got cold feet with a more obscure ending and gave us this crap.

My upon-further-reflection re-review:
Yeah, I think I do still hate it.

[TheBaxter]

Kryptonite - it's his "kryptonite" in the sense that it is the one thing he is vulnerable to. yeah, ALL people are vulnerable to drowning, but that's not the point. the point is, things that average people are vulnerable to, he is not vulnerable to, EXCEPT for water. it's not exactly the same as kryptonite/superman, water doesn't make him weaker (as far as we know) or more vulnerable to other non-kryptonite dangers, or kill him outright (like water does to those Signs aliens). but it's close enough to be an apt comparison.

Mr. Glass wasn't "travelling the world" causing disasters, he only caused 3 and they were all local: the train crash, something at an airport, and a building fire. the other newspaper clippings from other disasters weren't things he caused (how exactly would he cause a mudslide in Mexico anyway? can he make it rain at will.... then again, that would play to the "heroes and villains are opposites" thing if he could). they were things he clipped because he was looking for his opposite. and all the clippings referring to survivors would have meant his search ended long ago, if he had been causing them. no, those clippings were just part of his insane theories (which are nothing more than that, there's no evidence that anything he says about every villain having a hero who is his opposite is true, and in fact in comics, most villains aren't the exact opposites of the heroes; it's just his crazy theory, not reality). so since he was only looking locally (maybe he figured his superhero alter ego would have to be someone who lived nearby, because after all, in the comics the heroes and villains all live in the same city as each other too), he was only going to find someone who met his search parameters locally. if there wasn't, there wouldn't ever have been a movie in the first place (or it would have been a movie about a crazy guy who kills people looking for a non-existent invulnerable superhero instead), frankly it's not that much of a leap of faith compared to the logic-bending in most any other fantasy/sci-fi/superhero film. also, i think there's an implication that david isn't unique, but that there are people like him all over the world (hence all those other sole survivor news clippings) and that mr. glass just happened to find the one, or one of the ones, living in his own city.

finally, the part about david not realizing his powers til adulthood... i think on some level he DID know, maybe not precisely, but to some degree he realized he was different, but he was in some denial about it, or only aware at a subconscious level. he lied about his car crash injury, and used it as an excuse to stop playing football, and he's extremely resistant to any suggestion that he has these powers until stuff happens he can't explain away anymore. that's always been my take on the character. i think he has convinced himself that there's nothing special about him, and rationalizes away anything that happened up to that point. for example, the weight lifting scene... i think there's a mind-over-matter aspect, that he never attempted more weight because his mind was holding him back even though his body was more than capable of lifting more and more weight. that's why he seems to struggle to lift the weight, even at lower weights, it's his body slowly breaking through the constraints that his mind has been putting on him.

[so sorry]

finally, the part about david not realizing his powers til adulthood... i think on some level he DID know, maybe not precisely, but to some degree he realized he was different, but he was in some denial about it, or only aware at a subconscious level. he lied about his car crash injury, and used it as an excuse to stop playing football, and he's extremely resistant to any suggestion that he has these powers until stuff happens he can't explain away anymore. that's always been my take on the character. i think he has convinced himself that there's nothing special about him, and rationalizes away anything that happened up to that point. for example, the weight lifting scene... i think there's a mind-over-matter aspect, that he never attempted more weight because his mind was holding him back even though his body was more than capable of lifting more and more weight. that's why he seems to struggle to lift the weight, even at lower weights, it's his body slowly breaking through the constraints that his mind has been putting on him.

Yeah I guess I can buy that thinking. Not sure how he could suppress his "touch you and find out your sins" aspect though. Again, unless that power hadn't manifested itself yet.

[TheBaxter]

finally, the part about david not realizing his powers til adulthood... i think on some level he DID know, maybe not precisely, but to some degree he realized he was different, but he was in some denial about it, or only aware at a subconscious level. he lied about his car crash injury, and used it as an excuse to stop playing football, and he's extremely resistant to any suggestion that he has these powers until stuff happens he can't explain away anymore. that's always been my take on the character. i think he has convinced himself that there's nothing special about him, and rationalizes away anything that happened up to that point. for example, the weight lifting scene... i think there's a mind-over-matter aspect, that he never attempted more weight because his mind was holding him back even though his body was more than capable of lifting more and more weight. that's why he seems to struggle to lift the weight, even at lower weights, it's his body slowly breaking through the constraints that his mind has been putting on him.

Yeah I guess I can buy that thinking. Not sure how he could suppress his "touch you and find out your sins" aspect though. Again, unless that power hadn't manifested itself yet.

i think again, as his mind opens up to the possibility as the film goes on, his premonitions become more real and powerful. early on when he's a security guard and he chases down that guy with a weapon, he doesn't have a clear vision of it so much as a hunch that turns out to be right. when mr. glass asks him about it, he refers to other "hunches" he's had but never thought they were anything more than that. later, when he starts beginning to believe, his visions become more concrete.

[so sorry]

finally, the part about david not realizing his powers til adulthood... i think on some level he DID know, maybe not precisely, but to some degree he realized he was different, but he was in some denial about it, or only aware at a subconscious level. he lied about his car crash injury, and used it as an excuse to stop playing football, and he's extremely resistant to any suggestion that he has these powers until stuff happens he can't explain away anymore. that's always been my take on the character. i think he has convinced himself that there's nothing special about him, and rationalizes away anything that happened up to that point. for example, the weight lifting scene... i think there's a mind-over-matter aspect, that he never attempted more weight because his mind was holding him back even though his body was more than capable of lifting more and more weight. that's why he seems to struggle to lift the weight, even at lower weights, it's his body slowly breaking through the constraints that his mind has been putting on him.

Yeah I guess I can buy that thinking. Not sure how he could suppress his "touch you and find out your sins" aspect though. Again, unless that power hadn't manifested itself yet.

i think again, as his mind opens up to the possibility as the film goes on, his premonitions become more real and powerful. early on when he's a security guard and he chases down that guy with a weapon, he doesn't have a clear vision of it so much as a hunch that turns out to be right. when mr. glass asks him about it, he refers to other "hunches" he's had but never thought they were anything more than that. later, when he starts beginning to believe, his visions become more concrete.

OK fine! I get it, I was wr...wr.....wr.....wrong.

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

Why are you all talking about and trying to analyse a film that is like 16 years old? All this time and you lot STILL can't work these things out?

No wonder Trump got in.

[TheButcher]

Why are you all talking about and trying to analyse a film that is like 16 years old? All this time and you lot STILL can't work these things out?

No wonder Trump got in.

"Ah, Kirks, my old friend, do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us 'Revenge is a dish that is best served cold?' It is very cold ...in space."

[TheButcher]

M. Night Shyamalan Confirms Sequel for 'Unbreakable' and 'Split'
Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson are set to return for 'Glass.'

[TheButcher]

THR APRIL 26, 2017:
'Glass': How M. Night Shyamalan Could Redefine the Superhero Shared Universe

The sequel to 'Unbreakable' and 'Split' may offer a twist to what audiences expect from Marvel and DC films.
By now, the idea of shared cinematic universes is almost passé; Marvel's box office dominance has led to the launch of similar spaces for DC's superheroes and Legendary's kaiju-esque monsters, with both Hasbro's toylines and Universal's classic monsters about to get their own universes to play in as well. But the release of M. Night Shyamalan's Split this year teased something different — a superhero universe with a twist, fittingly enough.

That a moviemaker's stories all take place in the same world isn't a new thing — Quentin Tarantino has claimed that all of his movies are interrelated, for example — and certainly, Shyamalan hasn't shied away from suggesting connections between his own movies in the past. With the denouement of Split, however, he not only confirmed that the movie took place in the same world as his earlier Unbreakable, he created the first auteur shared superhero universe.

Up to this point, one of the defining features of a shared cinematic universe has been the fact that they're products of an army of creators, and as such, tend to either feature a singular tone and visual style — the Marvel movies, say — or feature abrupt shifts between installments (Compare Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, for example). The choice has been lack of consistency or lack of distinction, but having a shared universe all under the direction of one filmmaker would appear to offer one particular route out of that quandary.

Having one central authorial voice would also remove increased likelihood of any plot inconsistencies or dead ends in terms of the overall universe, a la Captain America: The Winter Soldier's deconstruction of SHIELD, which was immediately contradicted for obvious reasons when it came to the Marvel's Agents of SHIELD TV series — and offer the potential for more subtle connections between different properties than what audiences have become used to via Marvel or DC name dropping and Easter eggs.

Indeed, the immediate comic book model for this line of thinking isn't, perhaps surprisingly, the early days of Marvel Comics when Stan Lee had his hands in everything out of necessity — although, curiously enough, that might be a model for Kevin Feige's role in Marvel Studios today, guiding larger moves while letting individual creators do the heavy lifting. The more apt comic book example for Shyamalan comes from Grant Morrison's Seven Soldiers line from a decade or so ago; seven different series all written by Morrison, telling one over-arching story throughout all seven, but with each one an entity that can stand alone, separate from everything else. Translating that style into movies could bring a new depth to the superhero movie genre.

Of course, what the Unbreakable/Split connection actually means in practice remains to be seen. Will there be more to it than Glass, the newly announced movie tying the two films together, or will it simply be three movies that tell one story and then end forever? Certainly, there's the potential for more stories to be told inside the fictional Unbreakable Glass That Splits universe, in movies, comic books or elsewhere, should Shyamalan want to tell them — but that last part is the central appeal of it all. If Shyamalan isn't interested in expanding the universe beyond these three movies, what's the point? What makes the universe unique as it stands is the sole voice telling these stories. Take that away, and what's left to differentiate it from any other superhero universe …?

Glass will be released Jan. 18, 2019. Almost certainly, audiences will have to wait until the twist ending of that movie to find out if there's more to come.

[TheBaxter]

i just hope Anya Taylor-Joy comes back as Bruce Willis' sidekick....







in an appropriately skimpy costume, of course.

[TheButcher]

Forbes MAY 4, 2017:
How M. Night Shyamalan's 'Glass' Takes The Right Lessons From 'The Avengers'

Today is the fifth anniversary of Joss Whedon's The Avengers. And as such, I could wax on about its rather toxic legacy concerning how it sent the entire industry dumpster diving for cinematic universes and further distancing themselves from everything that wasn't tentpole-ish in nature just as television and streaming were about to monopolize quality character-driven dramas and diverse/inclusive entertainment. The jaw-dropping $1.5 billion success sent shockwaves through Hollywood in a way that a more modest bump from Iron Man 2's $623m worldwide gross would not have, and I sincerely believe that Hollywood's reaction to said success is part of why the mainstream theatrical industry is in its current predicament. Like Jaws, Star Wars and Batman, The Avengers was a good movie and a big hit that did the industry great harm by virtue of Hollywood at-large learning the wrong lessons.

But I rather liked the 2012 blockbuster and still do. So I won't rant about the negative legacy of a well-reviewed/well-received/first-of-its-kind blockbuster. Although I will acknowledge that Paramount/Viacom Inc. never got the proper credit for getting Iron Man, Thor and Captain America on base before Walt Disney swooped in and knocked it out of the park. I want to instead take a moment to note what may turn out to be one of the few successful attempts to copy the so-called interconnected cinematic universe formula. If you want a glance at the proverbial "next Avengers," you might want to take in a double-feature of M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable and Split. Because when Glass opens in January 18, 2019, it may be the closest thing we've gotten to an actual cinematic cross-over movie since the one that started it all.

As much as every studio in town likes to talk about theoretical cinematic universes, it is thus far either entirely theoretical (the Hasbro cinematic universe), failed (Sony's attempt at turning Amazing Spider-Man 2 into a backdoor pilot for Spidey spin-offs), in its infancy (the DCEU, Universal's classic monsters franchise) or merely a series of sequels and spin-offs that take place in the same world (Star Wars, The Conjuring, Disneynature). Heck, at this early juncture, we still don't know if audiences even like cinematic universes as a concept as opposed to merely loving Joss Whedon's superhero team-up sequel. But the big lesson from Marvel is that they took the time to build stand-alone installments of their various superheroes before teaming them up to save the world so that audiences liked these specific versions of said superheroes. By accident or by design, M. Night Shyamalan's two disparate genre offerings have done just that.

Heck, Warner Bros. was so impatient with the DCEU after The Avengers broke huge that they didn't even give us a solo Batman movie before teaming up Batman and Superman. And they gave us a Wonder Woman movie AFTER the first team-up (which is a prequel to the first team-up). Since we don't really know Aquaman, Cyborg or The Flash in this universe and Henry Cavill's Superman is dead, the Justice League movie will be mostly about the appeal of Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, Ben Affleck's Batman and the theoretical appeal of merely seeing DC Comics heroes onscreen together. To their credit, Warner Bros. is taking their time with the kaijū universe thus far, offering a Godzilla movie, a King Kong movie and a second Godzilla (which will presumably introduce other popular monsters) before the Kong vs. Godzilla team-up in May of 2020.

When Glass opens in 1.5 years, it'll be something every bit as unique as The Avengers. It won't be an explicit franchise offering or even a conventional sequel. It will be a case of two somewhat separate movies and their respective universes being combined into one joint adventure. It would be like if Alias and 24 teamed up for a three-part episode with Jack Bauer and Sydney Bristow kicking ass together or (if we're sticking with movies) if Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling teamed up with Holly Hunter's M.J. Monahan after Hannibal Lector and Daryll Lee Cullum both escaped from prison and teamed up. Even if we argue that M. Night Shyamalan had this in mind all along (the antagonist of Split existed as a villain in earlier drafts of Unbreakable), this Unbreakable 2/Split 2 super sequel combo pack is every bit as "never seen this before" as The Avengers was five years ago.

Both Split and Unbreakable feature surviving characters working with/against each other. Unbreakable fans have been yearning for a sequel for 16.5 years and the film's reputation has only grown as its comic book superhero deconstruction has become more relevant to pop culture at-large. Split is one of the higher grossing ($276 million worldwide) "not based on anything" straight-up horror movies in history and had legs to die for after a jaw-dropping $40m debut weekend. It's not just that M. Night Shyamalan is combining two films into one sequel to make a cinematic universe out of whole cloth. He is combining previously established heroes (Bruce Willis's David Dunn and Anya Taylor-Joy's Casey Cooke) and previously established villains (Samuel L. Jackson's Elijah Price and James McAvoy's The Beast) with whom we already have a rooting interest. Shymalan took the time to give us a stand-alone adventure for both franchises before combining them. So the Split/Unbreakable sequel will benefit from actual, not theoretical, interest in both worlds colliding.

Aside from being a good/crowdpleasing movie (that helps), Joss Whedon's adventure was the culmination of four stand-alone franchises (consisting of five previous movies) that laid the groundwork so that audiences would be interested in these specific variations of said iconic superheroes. It wasn't just "Iron Man and Thor and Hulk and Captain America team up against Loki." but rather it was Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Hemsworth and Edward Norton Mark Ruffalo and Chris Evans team up against Tom Hiddleston's versions of said characters!" And, come what may, The Avengers was the first time this kind of experiment had been attempted in modern times, with characters (and worlds) of separate movies coming together for one coherent sequel. And thus, Glass will be a combined sequel featuring previously established characters that audiences like while also being something of a first-of-its-kind.

For the record, I'm obviously not arguing that Glass is going to gross anywhere near what The Avengers (or even something like Signs) made here or abroad. This is a (guestimate) $15-$20 million Blumhouse release that will open in the middle of January. But five years after The Avengers changed Hollywood, arguably for the worse, it is amusing/ironic that one of our last regular creators of mainstream original genre fare is offering what amounts to a variation on the formula in a way that amounted to an entirely original cinematic universe. He did the work of creating original characters whom audiences wanted to see again and didn't even advertise their connected natures until the final frames of the second respective movie. And now, with audiences primed for a sequel to Split and Unbreakable, Shyamalan will give us Glass, a film that is both a floor cleaner and a dessert topping. We'll see if it works, but he is certainly making an effort to have his cake and eat it too. And, at the very least, it will make for one hell of a trailer.

[TheButcher]

THR SEPTEMBER 21, 2017:
M. Night Shyamalan's 'glass' Adds 'unbreakable' Actors (Exclusive)

Woodard, who appeared in M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable, are reprising their roles from the 2000 hit, joining the filmmaker's newest thriller, Glass.

Glass is the sequel to both Unbreakable, which starred Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, and Split, Shyamalan's surprise hit from earlier this year that starred James McAvoy. The project is being described as a comic book thriller, although it is not based on any preexisting material.

Willis is returning to the role of security guard David Dunn, who is imbued with superpowers, while McAvoy is back as Kevin Wendell Crumb, a man with multiple personalities, including the creature known as The Beast.

Glass finds Dunn pursuing Crumb's superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price, aka Mr. Glass (Jackson), emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men.

Clark is back as Willis' son, while Woodard is returning to play Jackson's mother.

Anya Taylor-Joy, who starred in Split, is back as Casey Cooke, the only captive to survive an encounter with The Beast. Sarah Paulson is also on the call sheet in a new undisclosed role.

Shyamalan, who wrote the script and is directing Glass, is producing with Jason Blum. Ashwin Rajan and Marc Bienstock are also producing, while Steven Schneider will executive produce.

Clark, who was 13 when Unbreakable was released, was recently seen playing villain Werner von Strucker on ABC's Agents of SHIELD and had a run on TNT's Animal Kingdom. He is repped by Don Buchwald & Associates and Untitled Entertainment.

Woodard has appeared on recent episodes of The Leftovers, The Blacklist and People of Earth. She is repped by Shelter Entertainment and Bret Adams Agency.

[so sorry]

First trailer.

[TheBaxter]

Split was really good.

Night is back!

[so sorry]

New trailer. Warning, this one seems to show quite a bit.

[Ribbons]

I'm deeply skeptical of this unholy alliance, but am avoiding spoilers anyway, since it's a Shyamalan movie and I know there'll be twists.

[so sorry]

I'm deeply skeptical of this unholy alliance

After watching this the first thing that popped into my head was the Freddy vs. Jason movie.

[Peven]

looking like a bigger movie than the first two in its scope, i hope it is for the better, I can see where M could be really cracking open a whole new world of "super" humans with this movie, revealing that there are many more than the three we already know. if it works it would be a "universe" of franchises that finally challenges the MCU for attention from moviegoers, the kind of franchise that DC hoped to create but failed miserably to do.

[Fievel]

This looks amazing. Unbreakable is still my favorite M. Night film, and I've pretty much given upon on him making a decent film again. The only thing I don't like is the cheesy lion roars from McAvoy's character.
I still need to see Split.

[Al Shut]

I can see where M could be really cracking open a whole new world of "super" humans with this movie, revealing that there are many more than the three we already know. if it works it would be a "universe" of franchises that finally challenges the MCU for attention from moviegoers,

Not sure how I would feel about this, same way I'm not sure about Mr. Glass constantly rubbing his comic book roots in my face. IN that regard I found Split to be more enjoyable than Unbreakable.

Still definitely a movie to watch out for.

[Ribbons]

All things considered, this movie wasn't half-bad. I don't expect much from Shyamalan anymore, and I figured any sequel/mash-up to his previous comic-genre entries would be a mess. It IS, in fact, a mess, but there are long stretches of time where it actually kind of works.

The story jumps right into the middle of the action, with Bruce Willis's David Dunn (I think his superhero name is The Overseer or something, but I honestly can't remember) attempting to catch "The Beast" from Split who has continued to kidnap and murder teenage girls. There's little to no attempt to help the audience play catch-up with these characters or the world they inhabit, and I appreciated that. The beginning of Glass keeps you off-balance in a way that I found strangely engaging; it's once the film moves to the mental hospital that you've seen in all the posters and previews that things start to go off the rails.

Like almost all of Shyamalan's output, there's a twist at the end (actually, two) that blows up the plot and changes the context of everything you've seen before it. And, like most of his twists, it has a kind of thematic resonance, but doesn't make much sense and falls apart under scrutiny. There's a doctor (Sarah Paulson) who specializes in what I'll call Superhero Delusional Disorder flown into Philadelphia in order to convince David Dunn, Mr. Glass and The Horde that they are actually ordinary losers. This is strange because we as audience members have already seen ample evidence that they are not, and because she repeatedly mentions that she must accomplish this goal in 72 hours, which is not typically how therapy works. The big reveal at the end clarifies some of these issues, but it creates several more. There's also quite a bit of the unintentional humor that have marred his later work, where bizarre and serious moments are treated in such a tone-deaf manner that they accidentally become hilarious. Picture Mark Wahlberg asking a plastic plant not to hurt him in The Happening, or... well, really anything in The Happening. It's a pretty standard Shyamalan movie, in other words; but it's probably the best one he's made in awhile.

The acting is great across the board, particularly by James McAvoy, who gets the flashiest role and probably the most screentime on balance (the title, GLASS, is a little strange, because Samuel Jackson is probably in it the least and doesn't even show up until halfway through); the ideas explored here are more interesting and provocative than Shyamalan's last couple of "scary crazy people" jaunts; and as someone who really liked Unbreakable and somewhat enjoyed Split, I was happy to see a story that combined both worlds in surprising ways. Go into this with reasonable expectations and I think you could have a pretty good time.

[TheBaxter]

all things considered, this movie wasn't half-good. i'd say it was slightly less than half-good.

i agree with a lot of the things ribbons says above. in particular, the beginning of the film was really good, and if anything, it made me wish for that 15 year old unbreakable sequel, the one we never got, where we actually got to see the Overseer (and his son, Robin(?)) doing their thing. of course, as the trailers already told us, we know where this is going... to the loony bin. and once it gets there, it stays there... for a LONG TIME. as in, pretty much the whole rest of the film. i guess i thought the mental hospital would be 2nd act, and they'd get out and the 3rd act would build to something bigger. but it doesn't. and that left me feeling overall disappointed with it. maybe a "big finale" would have been too conventional, but it didn't need to necessarily be a big CGI avengers-style throwdown to be satisfying. it just needed to be something memorable. so, the twists because of course there are twists... twist #1 is totally predictable. maybe not in the specifics, but you just know there's some ulterior motive behind the doctor's actions, and the actual motive isn't very surprising. and twist #2 just falls flat. it ended the film with a "that's all" type feeling for me. in the realm of shyamalama-ding-dong endings, i'd say it compares most closely to the Village... predictable and not terribly impressive.

the best thing about the film was the acting. mcavoy is a tour de force, and the rest of the cast is strong too (and it was cool to see the original actor back playing bruce willis' son). but it's not enough to save this film. it falls well short of both unbreakable and split in my opinion.

[Ribbons]

i guess i thought the mental hospital would be 2nd act, and they'd get out and the 3rd act would build to something bigger. but it doesn't. and that left me feeling overall disappointed with it. maybe a "big finale" would have been too conventional, but it didn't need to necessarily be a big CGI avengers-style throwdown to be satisfying. it just needed to be something memorable.

It almost felt like they were building to that, with the repeated mentions of the state-of-the-art skyscraper in downtown Philly. I'm not sure if the smaller ending was intentionally designed to subvert expectations or if the production just kind of ran out of money.

[Cpt Kirks 2pay]

I actually liked this film.

[so sorry]

This movie was terrible. On a grand scale. Me and M Night go together like oil and water. I don't know how this guy still gets people to back his work. I guess he can talk a good game.

Anyway, we're both Sixers fans, and I see his mug courtside at almost every game, so I can't hate on him as a person. His movies look pretty, I guess I can give him that too. But man, his scripts are just plain shit (IMO).