>, but i'm tired of
>it. make a real damn movie about something real. and i'm
>saying wes anderson has moved beyond the "in-crowd" thing and
>he's putting some faith in his audience to care and tone down
>the "style."
>

Because all genre movies are extremely concerned about 'style' (or genre) then a non-genre flick. OG Alien, as hyperrealistic hard-sci fi as it was, was as concerned with style as much as QT. Cameron may not have been winking at the screen on some 'Hey, look at these jokey characters having witty banter'...but you had those same cheesy horror cut quick edits, etc...that was already a staple of 70's horror flicks.

Imho to keep it sincere the way you're putting it in am movie(or pretty much any storytelling no matter what the medium).

1)You gotta build the world
2)You gotta build the characters
3)They gotta stay 'real' towards each other, meaning not break each others rules
4)The audience has to keep up the suspension of belief and buy into that world...ie no third wall breaking, no cool scenes for the sake of cool scenes, etc. QT's biggest flaw (or strength depending if you like it)

I don't see how M.Night has this, but Wes Anderson doesn't when the only difference is one keeps it relentlessly bleak and the other keeps it fanciful. (Hell, the more I type this out, the more I think that outside of tone they are pretty similar filmmakers as far as idiosyncracies are concerned...In a min of watching a scene I can know im watching an M.Night movie as easily as an Anderson one).