MovieChat Forums > M. Night Shyamalan Discussion > M. Night's Box Office History

M. Night's Box Office History


I was just taking a look at M. Night's budgets and box office numbers. A few things became quite clear:

1. His first four studio films did astounding returns in relation to their budgets. It's no wonder the studios loved him at that time.

2. He's a master at making low-to-mid-budget films that make back many multiples of their budget at the box office.

3. He's not good at making big-budget blockbusters.

4. He falters when adapting other people's work and should stick with writing his own original scripts.

Consider the following:

The Sixth Sense

Budget: $40 million
Box Office: $673 million

Unbreakable

Budget: $75 million
Box Office: $248 million

Signs

Budget: $72 million
Box Office: $408 million

The Village

Budget: $60 million
Box Office: $257 million

Lady in the Water

Budget: $70 million
Box Office: $73 million

The Happening

Budget: $48 million
Box Office: $163 million

The Last Airbender

Budget: $150 million
Box Office: $320 million

After Earth

Budget: $130 million
Box Office: $243 million

The Visit

Budget: $5 million
Box Office: $98 million

Split

Budget: $9 million
Box Office: $278 million

Glass

Budget: $20 million
Box Office: $247 million

Old

Budget: $18 million
Box Office: $90 million

Knock at the Cabin

Budget: $20 million
Box Office: $55 million

reply

Say what you will about the quality of his movies, but the guy is definitely a reliable investment for making a profit.

reply

His first four studio films were gold. I love all them, especially Signs and The Village. (I know a lot of people say that The Sixth Sense is his masterpiece but it's the least rewatchable of those first four.)

Since then he's been a real mixed bag, but yeah, he knows how to turn a profit. A lot of that clearly has to do to with his ability to make films with reasonable budgets.

reply

I agree. He's essentially an indie film maker that has been gifted with multimillion dollar budgets but also one that has shown that the investment pays off time and time again.

I'm also a fan of Signs rather than The Sixth Sense and I don't think he's topped that film since, with the big twist he's known for being that the "aliens" were actually demons of a sort. It's no wonder that he was able to get Mel Gibson, who's known for his religious interests, to headline the project.

reply

He's never confirmed that the demon theory is correct, but I am very familiar with it and I think that watching the movie through that lens actually makes it a better film.

I think that The Village is his best film, though. That may be a surprising take but I find it to be a very thoughtful movie on the nature of innocence and evil, and I also think that the idea of retreating from the modern world and taking up an old way of living is appealing.

reply

Watching Signs with that in mind definitely adds cohesion to the film, especially with details such as holy lands in the Middle East, that aren't particularly well endowed with water, being at the forefront of the resistance.

I'm a fan of The Village as well but I didn't find myself invested in the characters like I was with Signs. Definitely an underappreciated movie though, and I'd also put it above The Sixth Sense like you have.

reply

Going back to your comment about him essentially being an indie filmmaker, that really is true. He refuses to live in Hollywood and stays put in Pennsylvania and also shoots most of his films there. As someone who has come to think of Hollywood as something of a cesspool, I respect that.

reply

"I agree. He's essentially an indie film maker that has been gifted with multimillion dollar budgets but also one that has shown that the investment pays off time and time again."


I agree also.

reply

If he didnt have a studio releasing his films most would linger in the sales bin at Walmart. Yes, he started off great but his latest work is way below expectation.
I will however see the new Josh Hartnett flick.

reply

He has failed to reach the level of his first four studio films but I did at least think The Visit was a creative and fun film, and I enjoyed Old as well. Glass was interesting but I think he really needed a bigger budget to do a proper sequel to Unbreakable. Doing a $20 million sequel in 2019 to a movie that cost $75 million in 2000 is a recipe for disappointment.

reply

From your numbers, he turned a 20 million budget into a 247 million box office gross. That's pretty damned impressive from an exponential profit perspective.

It is too bad that he wasn't given a bigger budget though, because the movie definitely could have been flushed out with more expensive scenes that embellished the super hero/super villain components of the story.

reply

Oh, I'm definitely not saying that the film was not a box office success. It was definitely very successful (even though, from what I read, the final number came in under the studio's expectations).

But the response from critics and fans was quite mixed. I think that most people were hoping for a bit more from it and a bigger budget could've allowed him to deliver more. I don't hate the film, but it turned out to be a "just okay" and somewhat lackluster sequel to a highly original and interesting first installment.

reply

the points you make are a nice compliment.

reply

Oh, well thank you.

I guess it could all be summed up by saying that M. Night Shyamalan is USUALLY good at making "M. Night Shyamalan films" in the same way that Alfred Hithcock was good at making the specific kind of films that he was known for making. He's not so good at moving out of that lane and trying to make something else.

Also, his ability to squeeze as much value as possible out of his budgets is unique.

reply

Unbreakable and Signs have become very comfy films for me that I have seen at least a dozen+ times, probably more so the former. It is probably in my top five, maybe three, super-hero movies.

I've seen most of his films since, but none have impressed nearly as much, alas.

reply

For me the two are Signs and The Village, but Unbreakable is certainly a good film. In fact, it's the only M. Night film I own on 4K Blu-Ray. (But that's largely due to the fact that I already own Signs on regular Blu-Ray and The Village, for some unfathomable reason, has never been released on any format beyond DVD.)

For me, I consider all four of his first four studio films to be excellent, and then there's a line drawn between those films and everything that came after. For whatever reason, he has just never reached that level of greatness again.

reply

It's a shame. I have an inkling there is another director or two whose outputs follow the same trajectory, but none come to mind atm.

I only saw The Village the one time, maybe I'll give it another shot, *twenty years* later...!

reply

You definitely should try The Village again, and as you watch it, place more emphasis on the themes than the plot. The film is ultimately a meditation on the nature of innocence.

The concept of a group of people choosing to reclaim a past way of life and eschewing the modern world is very interesting as well.

Also take note of Roger Deakins' beautiful cinematography, James Newton Howard's score and the stacked cast and their performances.

reply

You don’t get enough acknowledgment for your contributions to this site. I know that’s not why you post but this is a really good thread and also inspired several interesting responses. This is why people come to MovieChat

reply

Thank you, I appreciate it! I do always enjoy it when I'm able to get into a good, thoughtful, meaningful conversation about movies around here. This site is pretty hit-and-miss for legitimate film conversation but I do appreciate it when I can get it.

I have certainly enjoyed many of your contributions as well. By the way, some time ago you sent me a PM. I responded but then never got anything from you. I do hope you received my reply.

reply

I cannot find that PM exchange on my history page. Maybe you could send me a quick PM “hello” so it’ll pull up that past conversation again. Regardless, apologies for neglecting to reply

reply

When you click the envelope icon at the top do you not see the conversation you started?

reply