Jump to content

Silent Hill Discussion


Night10194
 Share

Recommended Posts

myf, I could be wrong, but I think it's "I'll Kill You" - SH1 OST track 22

Edit:

It's "Dance With Night Wind" from Silent Hill 3 (Track 13).

I think.

That could be it, too. I don't remember now. But they're both great tracks anyway. "Dance With Night Wind" has a good piano part and "I'll Kill You" has really cool drums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is one of the better videogame to movie makes ive seen. The acting was really bad in my opinion however the sound was awesome. Silent Hill is know for its good sound effect and that was prominent in the movie for me. I never played the 1st Silent Hill but i know alot of the stuff from the second game was in the movie seeing that the 1st and 2nd games are based out of Silent Hill. Even the gap between the buildings at the hotel was there. I was sort of confused at the end but after reading some of your posts it all makes sence now and I kind of feel dumb for not realizing what was happening. Id like to see them make another.

On a side note - I watched this movie with the WORST audience ever! fist of all there was a lady who brought her 6 year old to the movie. Not only was it a midnight showing but Silent Hill is know for its creepy images. Its beyond me as to why she brought her kid. Needless to say the kid cryed through most of the movie until everyone in the theatre told her to take her kid out. Then there was the guy who had to yell out 'LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU' or 'YOU SHOULD HAVE CLOSED THE DOOR' the whole entire movie. Im a passive person but I wanted to blind side this guy with my fist after hearing a hour and a half of his fucking commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the worst movie I've seen all year.

Seriously, what a steaming load of shit.

Spoilers, I guess:

Sony: "Hey, let's introduce the radio static plot device at the very beginning, then never mention it again, because building suspense would be a bad thing for a horror movie!"

Me: "Go fuck yourself, Sony."

Sony: "Also, we should subsitute buckets of blood for the creepy suspense that was used more effectively in the games."

Me: "Please die."

Sony: "Say, is your autistic cousin available to do some editing? We'd like to jump from scene to scene without making much sense or giving any explanation as to why the characters are acting the way they do."

Me: "Yeah, I noticed that discontinuity. Eat shit."

Sony: "While we're at it, we're going to make some really stupid and arbitrary changes, like the little girl's name. Marketing indicates more little girls will identify with a 'Sharon' than they would with a 'Cheryl,' hence buying more Burger King Silent Hill collector's cups."

Me: "You suck."

The two good things about it were the nurse scene and the fact that the protagonist is a hottie. The nurse scene lasts about 90 seconds, and I bet there are pictures of the hottie protagonist on IMDB, so take that into consideration before you spend money here.

Edit: I forgot the

Cybil: "I'm keeping you at bay with this gun, but it's just a bluff. Here, I'll prove it...*click*...see? Oops, I probably should have thought that one through a bit more."

-steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Steve. What a flaming pile of horse poop.

Ebert's review is illiminating: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/REVIEWS/60421001 The only real draw to this movie would be horror film fans, or people who have played the game. I only played 3, not 1 or 2, so I had not idea what the plot would be. To me, the story had absolutely no point. There was no suspense. Nothing made me care about the characters. I could have written a better script in an afternoon. Not worth the money. However, I went in just wanting to see how they turned the game into a film, not expecting something great anyways.

Edit: In fact, the movie was so bad that now I have absolutely no desire to play SH1 or SH2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was the worst movie I've seen all year.

Seriously, what a steaming load of shit.

Spoilers, I guess:

Sony: "Hey, let's introduce the radio static plot device at the very beginning, then never mention it again, because building suspense would be a bad thing for a horror movie!"

Me: "Go fuck yourself, Sony."

Sony: "Also, we should subsitute buckets of blood for the creepy suspense that was used more effectively in the games."

Me: "Please die."

Sony: "Say, is your autistic cousin available to do some editing? We'd like to jump from scene to scene without making much sense or giving any explanation as to why the characters are acting the way they do."

Me: "Yeah, I noticed that discontinuity. Eat shit."

Sony: "While we're at it, we're going to make some really stupid and arbitrary changes, like the little girl's name. Marketing indicates more little girls will identify with a 'Sharon' than they would with a 'Cheryl,' hence buying more Burger King Silent Hill collector's cups."

Me: "You suck."

The two good things about it were the nurse scene and the fact that the protagonist is a hottie. The nurse scene lasts about 90 seconds, and I bet there are pictures of the hottie protagonist on IMDB, so take that into consideration before you spend money here.

Edit: I forgot the

Cybil: "I'm keeping you at bay with this gun, but it's just a bluff. Here, I'll prove it...*click*...see? Oops, I probably should have thought that one through a bit more."

-steve

Is that really all Sony's fault though? Wouldn't it make more sense to be angry at Gans?

Ebert's review is illiminating...

Do you expect any critic to give a HORROR movie based off a VIDEO GAME that wasn't SCREENED beforehand good reviews?

I'm not saying it was a work of art, just that those three things probably gave the rating before the movie even started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Steve. What a flaming pile of horse poop.

Ebert's review is illiminating: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/REVIEWS/60421001 The only real draw to this movie would be horror film fans, or people who have played the game. I only played 3, not 1 or 2, so I had not idea what the plot would be. To me, the story had absolutely no point. There was no suspense. Nothing made me care about the characters. I could have written a better script in an afternoon. Not worth the money. However, I went in just wanting to see how they turned the game into a film, not expecting something great anyways.

Edit: In fact, the movie was so bad that now I have absolutely no desire to play SH1 or SH2.

Anyone else wanna cry with me over this one?

edit: Gans had a big 'fuck you' to say to Ebert before Ebert had even written his review. I say the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah they're all dead.

You fail at silent hill. If your theory's true, Gans didn't understand the game at all.

I'm going to have to back Kiyosuki on this one, because his understanding of both the film and the series is beyond accurate. However, you have to consider that the script and the resulting story was written by Roger Avary, a casual gamer introduced to Silent Hill by Gans. It may be that they did understand the series somewhat, but when they strayed outside the familiar, the story fell apart, because the original story of Silent Hill is so intricately interconnected. I do differ with Kiyosuki on some things about the ending, but for the most part I agree, which I guess would mean that Gans' grasp on the story was not conveyed on the screen, if he truly did grasp it.

With that said, Gans has stated that unless the film is huge success among its fans, he will not be returning for a second film. (Don't interpret that as being that a second film won't exist, but that Gans will not likely be attached.)

Spoilers, I guess:

Sony: "Hey, let's introduce the radio static plot device at the very beginning, then never mention it again, because building suspense would be a bad thing for a horror movie!"

Me: "Go fuck yourself, Sony."

Sony: "Also, we should subsitute buckets of blood for the creepy suspense that was used more effectively in the games."

Me: "Please die."

Sony: "Say, is your autistic cousin available to do some editing? We'd like to jump from scene to scene without making much sense or giving any explanation as to why the characters are acting the way they do."

Me: "Yeah, I noticed that discontinuity. Eat shit."

Make sure you replace Sony with Davis Films, since Tristar, followed by Sony, didn't pick up the film until the script was finalized and production had already begun.

Sony: "While we're at it, we're going to make some really stupid and arbitrary changes, like the little girl's name. Marketing indicates more little girls will identify with a 'Sharon' than they would with a 'Cheryl,' hence buying more Burger King Silent Hill collector's cups."

Me: "You suck."

Really?! They've got collector's cups at Burger King?! [/j/k]

Sharon was a directorial change made for the film, to not only differentiate the character from the game, but from what I have heard, be a reference to a famous french actress, much as Cheryl is a reference to Sheryl Lee, a well-known actress in North America. I've forgotten who the other actress was, but regardless, the change was not arbitrary. Still, why complain about the name "Sharon," when Rose's original concept name was "Harriet?"

Edit: In fact, the movie was so bad that now I have absolutely no desire to play SH1 or SH2.

The games are way better than the film, in my own opinion. The only person that you are cheating by avoiding them, is yourself. I say this especially after what you've written about the film bogarting suspense and tension for gore. The original Silent Hill was a masterpiece of terror. I still can't play that game at night, by myself, with the lights out. Though most people can't tolerate the last generation graphics, it's still worth playing, multiple times. The updated version is going to appear on the PSP this summer at E3. So, make sure to keep an eye on that.

The follow-up, Silent Hill 2, is a work of art, from it's story to the character interactions to the monster designs to atmosphere and music. It inspires a bevy of emotions: fear, love, hatred, compassion, regret, realization, and so much in between. There's a reason why this game is a fan favorite. Takayoshi Sato is true artisan. It's too bad that his lack of skills with money and budgets lead him to get fired. Hopefully, EA will treat him better. Check out GoldenEye: Rogue Agent for a sample of his subsequent work with EA, or visit his website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'know, as much as some people complain about it I don't mind the use of music the film.

I felt really happy when the main theme/hometown blasted through the surround speakers...I hadn't heard it played like that since Chris rigged his PS1 up to the projector and we played SH1 on the big screen. I also thought it was pretty badass when Tears of pain came through at the end.

The only problem I had with it...is how I kept hearing "I'm looking for mama" and such during the film. or maybe that was my desperate need to substitute actual speech in for "Mew!" "Mew!" "Meow!" "Mrow!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to back Kiyosuki on this one, because his understanding of both the film and the series is beyond accurate. However, you have to consider that the script and the resulting story was written by Roger Avary, a casual gamer introduced to Silent Hill by Gans. It may be that they did understand the series somewhat, but when they strayed outside the familiar, the story fell apart, because the original story of Silent Hill is so intricately interconnected. I do differ with Kiyosuki on some things about the ending, but for the most part I agree, which I guess would mean that Gans' grasp on the story was not conveyed on the screen, if he truly did grasp it.

I understand that Gans has played the game, and that Avary has too, but my quarrel is with the idea that What happens in silent hill in the movie is just a cop out 'it was all a dream' ending, rather than reality. It seems to me like maybe they got the bad ending one too many times, and thought it was the real one.

I can accept them all being dead if and only if they'd intended a sequel based on Silent Hill 2, using Sean Bean's Character as James. However, until that sequel appears, I reject the literal-metaphorical heaven/hell/purgatory interpretation entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: I forgot the

Cybil: "I'm keeping you at bay with this gun, but it's just a bluff. Here, I'll prove it...*click*...see? Oops, I probably should have thought that one through a bit more."

-steve

Got to pick you up on that one at least. Did you notice the way Cybil was smiling when she pulled the trigger? My reading of it was that she knew the gun was empty, but equally she knew Rose had to get in that lift. When Rose was safely on the descent, she had won. They could beat her all they wanted, she'd done what she had to. Hence, the smile and the click. I thought it was beautifully done.

I doubt that'll make a difference to what you think of the film, but I thought it needed pointing out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious - if you liked the film, what specifically did you like about it? (Besides the fact that it's tied to a game.)

I'm not sure I would like it if it weren't for the video game connection. I probably would still like it since I like horror movies. People seem to keep saying that only horror & game fans can enjoy this movie, but I don't see that as being a bad thing. I am a horror & game fan and I do enjoy this movie. I'm not a fan of war-films, but that doesn't make all war-films intrinsically bad. Anyway, things I liked in the movie were things I already liked from the games and without them the movie might have little left over. I doubt there will be a "perfect" game->film conversion of anything ever. Unless money is not a factor; but money is always a factor. The people with the money aren't the artists, and if they were, they'd probably have some "vision" to shape the product into.

...Has there ever been any discussion on the "Born from a wish" scenario? I think I'd like to delve into that.

Like what? The rebirth connection? Or the side-characters introduced in it? How rich the family owning that mansion was?

I've recently been reading theories about Xuchilbara & Lobsel Vith

ex: Xuchilbara = Valtiel = rebirth = butterflies = Maria

stuff like that. I think the sub-scenario just cements some theories about Maria. Unless there's more to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious - if you liked the film, what specifically did you like about it? (Besides the fact that it's tied to a game.)

Well, in my case, I couldn't care less that it's based on game. I watched it as a horror film, not as a "video game movie." But anyway, here's a post I did on another forum that explains why I like the film. I assume you'll disagree with my reasoning, but that's fine. :P

I'm a big fan of horror movies and I really liked this one.

One thing that I feel needs to be stressed is that Silent Hill is not a drama; those who consider good character development and/or plot to be necessary for a film to be well-done are not going to enjoy this, or indeed, a great many other horror films (aside from horror/dramas à la The Others, Sixth Sense, Jacob's Ladder etc.)

Like many horror movies, Silent Hill is almost entirely about the visuals. And even the negative reviews admit that this film has some amazing imagery. The problem is, rather than seeing the visuals (and the atmosphere they create) as the main course, the reviewers are inclined to toss them aside as a superficial garnish. This sets them up to dislike the film and it is perhaps largely responsible not only for the bad reviews that this movie in particular is receiving, but for the poor reception of most non-drama horror in general (for instance, Wolf Creek, High Tension, The Hills Have Eyes and Saw I/II: all recent horror films that are generally highly regarded among genre fans but rate in the 30%-50% range on rottentomatoes).

Think of the 70's Argento film, Suspiria--a major horror release and something of a minor classic even outside the genre. But why is it well-liked? Surely not for the poorly dubbed dialogue, the paper-thin characters or the thoroughly uninteresting plot. No, it's a classic because of its imagery; its imagery is the whole point. It's not that it's style over substance, but rather, the style is the substance. Horror films derive more from paintings than from books; they are not trying to tell a disturbing story so much as trying to show one. As a philosophy, they take the moniker of "moving picture" quite literally.

Silent Hill is simply following in the tradition of visually-oriented horror films. And appreciated in this light, it is a marvelous work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like what? The rebirth connection? Or the side-characters introduced in it? How rich the family owning that mansion was?

I think the sub-scenario just cements some theories about Maria. Unless there's more to it.

I was more interested in hearing any theories about what exactly happened in Ernest's life before Maria came aong. You can gather some facts, but I'd like to nkow the whole story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having liked the Silent Hill movie, and with my only experience with Silent Hill being the demo of 4, I must say, I am intrigued. The acting may have been subpar, but the music was excellent (seeing as how it was from the games), and the direction was beautiful. Also, I slept with the light on that night. Colin scares me. And Red Pyramid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having liked the Silent Hill movie, and with my only experience with Silent Hill being the demo of 4, I must say, I am intrigued. The acting may have been subpar, but the music was excellent (seeing as how it was from the games), and the direction was beautiful. Also, I slept with the light on that night. Colin scares me. And Red Pyramid.

Luckily, I had work that night so I had stuff to occupy my mind (although I was all alone in a empty grocery store) I did almost freak myself out when I went to the bathroom though... :roll:

In some ways, those are the best parts of seeing movies like Silent Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to back Kiyosuki on this one, because his understanding of both the film and the series is beyond accurate. However, you have to consider that the script and the resulting story was written by Roger Avary, a casual gamer introduced to Silent Hill by Gans. It may be that they did understand the series somewhat, but when they strayed outside the familiar, the story fell apart, because the original story of Silent Hill is so intricately interconnected. I do differ with Kiyosuki on some things about the ending, but for the most part I agree, which I guess would mean that Gans' grasp on the story was not conveyed on the screen, if he truly did grasp it.

I understand that Gans has played the game, and that Avary has too, but my quarrel is with the idea that What happens in silent hill in the movie is just a cop out 'it was all a dream' ending, rather than reality. It seems to me like maybe they got the bad ending one too many times, and thought it was the real one.

I can accept them all being dead if and only if they'd intended a sequel based on Silent Hill 2, using Sean Bean's Character as James. However, until that sequel appears, I reject the literal-metaphorical heaven/hell/purgatory interpretation entirely.

Man.... before I saw the movie I was seriously saddened that they had literallized the concept of Silent Hill so much, with the whole coal mining/abandoment backstory, ruling out any possible ambiguous endings.

I was delighted when it ended with that possibility anyway.

FYI, here was one fan who was lookng for the "it was all a dream ending". I would have been pissed if it was just a scary town run by evil magic, and that was the only way to interpret it.

Fans interpret the games differently. The film rightly allows for all possible interpretations (well, not the "Silent Hill is a normal contemporary town and the main character's just nuts" possibility.....)

And this is not directed only at you, but the idea I've heard all over the net since friday (so no offense, mate. And I think you were just bringing up the possibility anyway): The possibility of Chris as the new James is dumb. It doesn't work. It's not just about a man with a dead wife. SH2 SPOILER:

"It's about a man who has murdered his wife"

Change the story if you want. Change the characters. Hell, change the personal SIN if you want... but Chris just wandering around looking for Rose, whose death he had nothing to do with, is just wrong. I don't care if they secretly had marital problems or whatever... it doesn't work.

And on top of that, I don't think it's what Gans was getting at. It was just showing that life went on for Chris, while his wife never showed up. That's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply meant reusing the idea of a letter from beyond the grave inviting to silent hill, not the actual plot of the second game. Particularly since the plot of the movie is so divergent from that of the first game, the word Gans has created is very different from the SH world, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...