Are M. Nights bad films really his fault?

It depends which ones you consider the "bad" ones. A lot of people think The Village is bad, while others consider it good to great. In general, there are four movies where he didn't have creative control and three of those are his absolute worst, so there's some truth to it, but by the same gesture many people consider Lady in the Water to be terrible and that one is absolutely his vision.

From what I've read it, works out like this...

Films where he had complete creative control and final cut:

Praying with Anger
The Sixth Sense
Unbreakable
Signs
The Village
Lady in the Water
The Visit

Films that were micromanaged by the studio or where the studio retained final cut:

Wide Awake
The Happening
The Last Airbender
After Earth

Certainly I'd say it's obvious that he's better (if not exactly "good") when working to his own vision rather than working to studio specifications.

All down to taste.
People got on his back because he had a long run of doing similar movies.
But for me he provides something that is lacking in Hollywood.. The B-movie (at least the modern equivalent)

The Happening was the last of his I saw, and I quite liked it for it's B movie quality (didn't like the end)

Had to admit his recent bit CGI films haven't really interested me that much.

What in the hell are you talking about? True B movies are low budget films and there are countless REAL B movies made every single year that get little to no publicity. Just because some of M. Night's films turn out horribly doesn't make them B movies.

Yes. Yes it is his fault. ALL of his movies are BAD to HORRIBLE with the exception of sixth sense being pretty good but far from great. That's a universal fact, not my opinion. Every other movie he has made is complete *beep* He should be banned from the movie industry completely. I have no idea who would give him money to make a movie after something like After Earth. ALL of his movies are *beep* I cannot understand how such a talentless, creepy, Useless hack can constantly keep making movies. He makes Uwe Bolle look like *beep* Spielberg! This guy is like that weirdo who made that "worse movie of all time" - the guy with the black hair and pasty skin buying roses in a shop or whatever - m night is on that same level except people seem to think he's good for some reason? Does he have rich parents? I don't get it. I've seen better acting/ditection on the TELETUBBIES.

Signs is not bad

The B movie experience at A movie prices. His movies are NOT cheap to make.

No, definitely not his fault. There has been someone sabotaging all his films ever since The Sixth Sense, possibly even a demon who has possessed Shyamalan.

There are rare glimpses of Shyamalan's brilliance which shine through in films like those blank stares, those Shyamalanesque names like Cypher Raige which show the master at his work. But they are clouded by a demon who has possessed him, causing him to take each masterpiece he makes and then edit it in a way such that it is only half as good as what it originally was, with only half as many plot twists and blank stares and long panning shots, that awkward silence which only carries for like 20 seconds when the original master would have made it about 20 minutes.

In this thread and the crappy article not one mention of "the 9/11 cycle".

If you did not understand what Night was saying about america then how could you say the movies were good/bad.

eg 6th sense was NOT about ghosts and if you did not see what it WAS about then you are simply american, blinded Eyes Wide Shut BY the American Beauty.

46 years after Kubrick did 2001 A Space Odyssey the great majority of americans still think it was about space.

You see Kubrick used the american obsession with space as his VEHICLE to say something way deeper and Night does the same.

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/