Jump to content

Silent Hill Discussion


Recommended Posts

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.

Yeah. It would end up being only a setup for a story though... not a story in itself. I loved that SH2's opening only appeared to be a gimmick until you got far enough..... (ooh your wife is dead... scary! SPOILER: But it's because you euthenized her....... oh, that is kinda sad and disturbing.)

But Gans loves SH2. It was his original plan to adapt that one. Do you think he will really give up the "sinners being drawn to SH" storyline? Even if it's completely different (which I don't expect), I believe it will still deal with that focus. If Rose does summon Chris, he better have killed their first child or something. :lol:

And I don't think it's divergent at all, in concept. Yes, the backstory has been filled in, and the story doesn't lead too well into SH3... but he made all these changes with SH2 love, and likely intends to follow it up with a telling of that game as promised.

Like I said, change all you want. Perhaps some completely different sinners are drawn to SH and it's SH2 in spirit only. Fine by me. But tying it into the first one just turns the "dead wife letter" into what it appeared at first glance: a gimmick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Good thing you're not the director.

If you're referring to the first part: I don't think things should be changed. I'm just not against it.

If you're referring to the second part: Why? Because it's such a good idea to shoehorn a tragedy-less character from the first movie into a tragic plot thread from SH2?

Link to post
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.

An empty grocery store... reminds me of 28 Days Later. :-P

On another note, I have come up with a theory that the town of Silent Hill, West Virginia is an allegory for Hell. Well, Dark Silent Hill, anyway. Also, I think the intial darkness may have been a hallucination caused by breathing the fumes (note how those monsters never appear again, and they do nothing to her when she falls and passes out), and Rose entered purgatory/Hell only after going unconcious (and dying from fumes) in that basement/sewer thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's NOT just a scary town run by evil magic.

Despite what you may think, the only times that the games' PLOTS are open to interpretation is with multiple endings.

The games are pretty clear about what's going on.

Furthmore, with the advent of Silent Hill 3, the first game lost a lot of its ambiguity, as Silent Hill 3 Really hammered in the plot of silent hill 1.

SO, once again, I have to cry when people take the allegory that the movie is using, and then apply it literally, as though the allegory is no longer an allegory, but rather the real plot. No, my friends, it's just an allegory, for pete's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it would be exactly a cop out if it was what I think it was. You have to look at this in an interpretive way rather than glaringly literal. If it is...what I say it is then Rose' only real way to escape that kind of limbo was to complete her little mission. Its not a dream and none of it ever happened scenerio...its a fight for the soul in a way if it were like that. Its similar in motif to Jacob's Ladder in that regard.

Think of it like...James' struggle to face his personal evil..just more in an intangible kind of way. It could be an interpretation of limbo like how Tron is an interpretation of whats going on inside a computer.

That said...I'm not saying and have never said that I'm 100% sure that I'm right, because I'm not. Its a very interpretive film...the games themselves are interpretive. 50% of the so called facts that SH fans see as canon facts about the series are just speculated. But thats what makes it so great.

I'm just trying to keep in mind that this film is a separate entity from the games...for now. It was made by a fan of the game...but also by people who are more casual to it than your average SH fan. There's dozens of ways to interpret a story like Silent Hill's and this film could be but a few of those. Its why this film is destined to be a cult film rather than a mainstream success...sadly not everyone likes to think, because you have to in this film.

No explanation is literal.

I will say though...that while its explainable why Pyramid Head is in there...thinking about it twice it really is probably a fanservice thing. It works...but it would of been far more effective if Gans or the design team had designed a primary monster especially for the story. Something that...represents something in this particular story like how Pyramid Head represents James' suppressed desire to punish himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's NOT just a scary town run by evil magic.

Despite what you may think, the only times that the games' PLOTS are open to interpretation is with multiple endings.

The games are pretty clear about what's going on.

Exactly... multiple endings. The evidence within the games points to each of the endings as being possible. You would be wrong to assume there are "true" and "false" endings. To be sure, there are "better" and "worse" endings, or perhaps endings confirmed as "true" by sequels, but within each game all endings are possible.

SH2, especially, takes care to make each ending plausible given the events that come before. SH2 SPOILER: Is it more likely that James commited suicide? Went home with a sexier replica of his dead wife? Or ressurected her in a dark ceremony? All are possible. All are implied by the narrative. There is no true ending.

Basically, it's the ending to Jacob's Ladder. With that linear film, we had a "true" ending that said Jacob was killed in the army and it was all a coma-hallucination. Within the movie, they also hint that perhaps the army tested chemicals on him and he made it home. This would be analagous to the Alessa plotline in the movie, after which they tell us "it was all the dream of some dead folks.... or was it? Maybe they're lost in a limbo dimension? Maybe they're still stuck in SH?" Yes, you are certainly intended to consider all plotlines as legitimate.

SH is strongly based on Jacob's Ladder, but I'm positive you know that.

EDIT: Also holy crap.... two JL mentions in two posts. See the post above mine :)

Furthmore, with the advent of Silent Hill 3, the first game lost a lot of its ambiguity, as Silent Hill 3 Really hammered in the plot of silent hill 1.

I agree, but such is the necessity of a direct sequel.

Also, if SH5 stars a ressurected Mary, would you then be forced to consider the ressurection as the true ending?

I'm reminded of Mortal Kombat 3, which stated that no one had one the MK2 tournament. Basically, all the MK2 endings were false. Just an analogy. I know MK sucks :lol:

SO, once again, I have to cry when people take the allegory that the movie is using, and then apply it literally, as though the allegory is no longer an allegory, but rather the real plot. No, my friends, it's just an allegory, for pete's sake.

I didn't say it was the real plot. I said it was one of many possible plots. I have always loved that fact that SH is open to multiple interpretations. They clearly intend that or they wouldn't be so ambiguous about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: Boco, you are the king of the double-post. This is a bad thing.

With respect to jacob's ladder:

Actually, it's made pretty clear in the movie that what's happening is Jacob's transition from life to death. Not a coma-induced hallucination.

quote:

If you're scared of dying, you'll see demons ripping your life away. But if you've made your peace, they're really angels, freeing you from the Earth.

blah blah blah.

It's bothering me that you kids keep talking about Silent Hill 2, and comparing it to the movie, as though you hadn't played the other three. Silent Hill 2 is a completely different idea.

I won't disagree that the movie's silent hill is a representation of limbo, but I DO disagree that the movie's silent hill IS limbo.

Furthermore, I keep seeing people digging for explanations, when in truth, it's just a horribly flawed script. That said, I see no reason to speculate.

Once again, I say there ARE NOT dozens of ways to interpret the first silent hill game. It's a pretty pre-packaged story, with clues that give you all the information you need to know what's happening.

I agree, that in the movie, you have to think, but I disagree that you have to think so far outside 'the box' that you haven't even got anything connecting your ideas to the box itself. The movie requires thought, but not so much thought, that it is necessary to fabricate a structural system for which there is only a speculative basis, when there's a concrete basis right there in the film.

...I have a feeling that we're going to end up in some ridiculous argument where you guys argue art for arts sake, and I start arguing the intention of the artist.

Sure I can speculate on any of the games, if I want to, but there's plenty of evidence within the games to show that those speculations are actually wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I need a little clarification. I have yet to finish all the games here as my PS2 refuses to work. I've only finished the first one, and that was when it was first released. Are 2 and 4 reinterpretations of the original story or isolated events that happened to people unrelated to Alessa, or should I just not worry about that until I finish all the games?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I need a little clarification. I have yet to finish all the games here as my PS2 refuses to work. I've only finished the first one, and that was when it was first released. Are 2 and 4 reinterpretations of the original story or isolated events that happened to people unrelated to Alessa, or should I just not worry about that until I finish all the games?

2 and 4 are unrelated to 1 and 3, for the most part. 2 and 4 are also loosely related to each other.

Silent Hill 2 is also one of the greatest video games ever made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...I have a feeling that we're going to end up in some ridiculous argument where you guys argue art for arts sake, and I start arguing the intention of the artist.

No, I think we're done, since we agree on nothing.

Suffice it to say that I do disagree with most of the stuff you just posted. I disagree with your "rules" for Jacob's Ladder, and I disagree on your "rules" for SH, movie and games alike. We have a differing opinion, and as someone who's played all the games and seen the movie, my opinion is informed, as yours might also be.

edit: Boco, you are the king of the double-post. This is a bad thing.

A different post is required to make a different point. I don't know if it's against the rules of OCR or if you just don't like it for some reason, but personally I would rather people post separate topics in separate entries. I won't do it again because obviously it offends you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Good thing you're not the director.

If you're referring to the second part: Why? Because it's such a good idea to shoehorn a tragedy-less character from the first movie into a tragic plot thread from SH2?

A film is going to be adapted in different ways when making the transition from another medium,

The ending was left open to continue the same basic narratives found in the second game. If you can't see that as a possible scenario, then you're blind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ending was left open to continue the same basic narratives found in the second game. If you can't see that as a possible scenario, then you're blind.

You've convinced me.

And Eddie is no longer on the run for murdering cops, now he's wandering into SH looking for work!

And Angela no longer killed her father for abusing her, now her father's actually in jail for tax evasion, and she's in town for some sightseeing!

:roll:

Again, change all you'd like to make a better film. I'm no SH fundamentalist. But with that scenario, you've changed the protagonists's dead wife from a tragic reminder of the his past sins into an evil carrot-on-a-stick used to lure him into the town.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But with that scenario, you've changed the protagonists's dead wife from a tragic reminder of the his past sins into an evil carrot-on-a-stick used to lure him into the town.

...So? You could go anywhere from there. It's not guaranteed to suck.

(speaking of which, that carrot on a stick idea is exactly what DOES happen in Silent Hill 2)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why a lot of "kids" seem to refer to the second game a lot is because it has a lot in common with the film in motif, even though the story is derived from the first game. It pushes the personal purgatory thing, and the possibility of after-death scenerio's made physical.

In a way...the fourth game also has some possible similarity in how Walter functions after his apparent death. Its almost as if the cult had found a way to enter the netherrelm of the world...using less than savory means but a means nonetheless. This is all purely speculative of course.

Gans did definitely understand the core concept of Silent Hill though, according to interviews I've seen. Basically the idea of the "normal" world, the foggy world...and then the "other" world. How people are drawn to those other two sub-worlds differs from game to game...and the nature of it is something players have to put together completely on their own, using hints thrown out and around. Maybe thats what he was trying to go for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But with that scenario, you've changed the protagonists's dead wife from a tragic reminder of the his past sins into an evil carrot-on-a-stick used to lure him into the town.

...So? You could go anywhere from there. It's not guaranteed to suck.

(speaking of which, that carrot on a stick idea is exactly what DOES happen in Silent Hill 2)

With a payoff. She didn't die randomly... she died due to the actions of the main character. SH2 was an average ghost story, until we learn that there's actually a reason his dead wife was calling out to him.

It's as if I were to adapt Jurassic Park, but instead of humans cloning the dinosaurs, we'll just have aliens plant the dinosaurs on an island. I mean, it's all the same right? People trapped on an island with dinosaurs? It works right?

Except it doesn't. You've removed the moral idea (and appeal) from the original concept. That man shouldn't play God, in that case. That James is being punished by the town for murder, in this case. It isn't the same thing.

It's not guaranteed to suck, but if Rose really is just calling out to Chris as an excuse to get him into the town, then yes, it will suck. That sounds like a videogame movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, it's the ending to Jacob's Ladder. With that linear film, we had a "true" ending that said Jacob was killed in the army and it was all a coma-hallucination. Within the movie, they also hint that perhaps the army tested chemicals on him and he made it home.

Ya know, on the DVD there is a second ending which actually follows the chemicals plotline. It's very strange, but isn't nearly as impressive as the real ending.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will say though...that while its explainable why Pyramid Head is in there...thinking about it twice it really is probably a fanservice thing. It works...but it would of been far more effective if Gans or the design team had designed a primary monster especially for the story. Something that...represents something in this particular story like how Pyramid Head represents James' suppressed desire to punish himself.

They could have, but Masahiro Ito, monster designer for SH1, SH2 and SH3, already left Konami. (It's undetermined whether or not he was fired.) Masahiro Ito currently draws and animates from his home studio. You can visit his website for more artwork from Silent Hill and other series. (Warning: Link contains material that is NOT WORK APPROPRIATE)

Now that the film has been completed, I wonder who Konami has cut from Team Silent now. (It's part of the curse of Silent Hill for Konami to fire/let go of one of the primary creators for the series after the completion of a major project.) I wonder if it's affecting the series...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ending was left open to continue the same basic narratives found in the second game. If you can't see that as a possible scenario, then you're blind.

You've convinced me.

And Eddie is no longer on the run for murdering cops, now he's wandering into SH looking for work!

And Angela no longer killed her father for abusing her, now her father's actually in jail for tax evasion, and she's in town for some sightseeing!

:roll:

Again, change all you'd like to make a better film. I'm no SH fundamentalist. But with that scenario, you've changed the protagonists's dead wife from a tragic reminder of the his past sins into an evil carrot-on-a-stick used to lure him into the town.

You're a shortsighted idiot. I'm not changing anything. I'm merely stating that another director could come along and create a film adaptation of the 2nd game's storyline.

Link to post
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.

Thanks for posting that. The visuals/audio was indeed very well done. I guess I don't see how having a plot would detract from the visuals, but that's just personal taste in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ending was left open to continue the same basic narratives found in the second game. If you can't see that as a possible scenario, then you're blind.

You've convinced me.

And Eddie is no longer on the run for murdering cops, now he's wandering into SH looking for work!

And Angela no longer killed her father for abusing her, now her father's actually in jail for tax evasion, and she's in town for some sightseeing!

:roll:

Again, change all you'd like to make a better film. I'm no SH fundamentalist. But with that scenario, you've changed the protagonists's dead wife from a tragic reminder of the his past sins into an evil carrot-on-a-stick used to lure him into the town.

You're a shortsighted idiot. I'm not changing anything. I'm merely stating that another director could come along and create a film adaptation of the 2nd game's storyline.

Irony: I'm shortsighted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't see how having a plot would detract from the visuals, but that's just personal taste in the end.

In my experience, it's very hard (if not impossible) to do character development/exposition in a horror movie without sacrificing atmosphere. True horror (in my opinion) is only acheived by immersion--by sustaining an appropriate atmosphere. And this is difficult when the tension is constantly being lessened in order to further the plot or develop the characters (and to the extent that Silent Hill does this, particularly with the Sean Bean plot, I think it loses its effectiveness).

But part of this comes from my underlying philosophy that horror movies should be less like stories and more like rides.

Not surprisingly I think that games, where you often go hours with no exposition getting in the way, are the best medium for horror.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, it's the ending to Jacob's Ladder. With that linear film, we had a "true" ending that said Jacob was killed in the army and it was all a coma-hallucination. Within the movie, they also hint that perhaps the army tested chemicals on him and he made it home.

Ya know, on the DVD there is a second ending which actually follows the chemicals plotline. It's very strange, but isn't nearly as impressive as the real ending.

Yes I remember that :) Ever more proof that it's not "it means Jacob's trapped in limbo and that's it!", but rather interpretive.

The filmmakers obviously thought it was okay to go with a different ending, so the concept was never set in stone, but rather, it could have gone in multiple directions.

It is very analagous to the multiple possibilities of SH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I remember that :) Ever more proof that it's not "it means Jacob's trapped in limbo and that's it!", but rather interpretive.

The filmmakers obviously thought it was okay to go with a different ending, so the concept was never set in stone, but rather, it could have gone in multiple directions.

It is very analagous to the multiple possibilities of SH.

Actually, it just means that the film makers chose to give it the ending you see in the normal version. Deleted endings are deleted because they're not what the film maker wants. So, that in mind, the alternate ending is a possibility, but it's not THE ending.

(also, the impression I got from the film was that the chemical stuff really did happen, and wasn't all just made up.)

Once again, sure, you can speculate on anything about the silent Hill games, but there's very little in the games to support those speculations, since there are only 4 or so endings per game, and all of them pertain to the future, rather than the past. you only see what's GOING to happen, not what did happen. SO, there's really only ONE interpretation of what DID happen, and several possibilities of what COULD happen.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...