Sign in to follow this  
D.W.

Episode #22

Recommended Posts

Was really enjoying the show up until the review.

Argh.

Man. I'm going to be brutally honest here. I really disliked the Silent Hill review. Right on with a few things, but totally off with everything else. No offense, but there were just too many assumptions/judgements made by two people that really had little to no experience with the games. To your credit though, you guys did admit that fans of the game would enjoy it a lot more.

I'll be the very first to say that an understanding of the themes/history in the games is needed to really appreciate a lot of the stuff in the movie, but as someone that really enjoyed it, I'm really frustrated by how much the movie's been shit on by people (not just you guys, it's been panned by critics). I'm really tempted to take up your offer and write/record my own review.

Other than that, it was the usual goodness. And I give James credit for keeping my interest despite the fact that I don't watch anime.

Oh, and three quick things.

1) The door that Pyramid Head sliced through was wood in the normal Silent Hill, but in "dark" Silent Hill, everything is metal. You can see the hole close up and change back to wood after PH and the bugs disappear.

2) The bathroom door wasn't locked as far as I know, so she just walked out of the room.

3) Windows weren't broken because they were never in the "real" Silent Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One shouldn't have to know the source material to fully enjoy (or review) the film. By producing a movie, the filmmakers are attempting to reach a wider audience than, in this case, the game(s) ever did; they cannot assume that everyone is familiar with the nuances of the story and characters, no matter how many units have been sold.

They can build upon those to make the experience richer for fans (as I suspect they did), but the uninitiated shouldn't walk out of the theater feeling gypped because they haven't played a seven year old video game.

For instance: Jen has never read a Batman comic. Ever. But I know for a fact that she enjoyed Batman Begins. This is because Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer took the time to build-up the characters -- they were given depth. Silent Hill, on the other hand, throws you smack-dab in the middle of the story and never looks back to explain anything (beyond the adoption) about the family we're supposed to care and worry for. Instead, the filmmakers chose to focus on the history of this damned town, and gave the characters as much depth as they needed to to get by -- which was hardly any. (Yes, the picture is called Silent Hill, so the town should be a focus. But the family it consumed should have been more than cookie-cutter archetypes.) By doing so, the film was hindered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One shouldn't have to know the source material to fully enjoy (or review) the film. By producing a movie, the filmmakers are attempting to reach a wider audience than, in this case, the game(s) ever did; they cannot assume that everyone is familiar with the nuances of the story and characters, no matter how many units have been sold.

They can build upon those to make the experience richer for fans (as I suspect they did), but the uninitiated shouldn't walk out of the theater feeling gypped because they haven't played a seven year old video game.

Which I would agree with, in most cases. But this movie was quite obviously designed as a fan service for those people that did play that seven year old game. I completely understand why you didn't like the movie, because you had different expectations going in.

For instance: Jen has never read a Batman comic. Ever. But I know for a fact that she enjoyed Batman Begins. This is because Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer took the time to build-up the characters -- they were given depth.

Batman Begins was also an origin story, of a completely different genre, and had to do with a MUCH more recognized subject. I've never read a Superman comic or seen any of the television shows or movies, but I can still tell you a lot about the character of Clark Kent.

Silent Hill, on the other hand, throws you smack-dab in the middle of the story and never looks back to explain anything (beyond the adoption) about the family we're supposed to care and worry for. Instead, the filmmakers chose to focus on the history of this damned town, and gave the characters as much depth as they needed to to get by -- which was hardly any. (Yes, the picture is called Silent Hill, so the town should be a focus. But the family it consumed should have been more than cookie-cutter archetypes.) By doing so, the film was hindered.

Except that in the case of Silent Hill, the purpose is to leave you with more questions that answers, as was tradition with the games. The town or it's aura, in a sense, is the main character, hence why so much attention was paid to it.

The characters are nearly irrelevent, aside from a few recognizable faces (Cybil, Dahlia, Alessa). The character of Rose was quite nearly an exact duplicate of Harry Mason from the very first game. Hell, the first 15 or so minutes in the town are more or less a shot by shot run through of the first moments of the game. She wasn't given a lot of depth because she was, as she would have been in the game, the character's eyes. The viewer is supposed to experience everything as if it were being shown to them. It's like the "silent protangonists" that you see in RPGs all of the time. They're not silent because the producers couldn't think of dialouge for them, they're silent because they can be more easily identified with.

There's this belief that most have when watching (or critiquing) a movie that there are these certain 'things' that EVERY movie of EVERY genre has to have. What this tends to ignore is that certain genres or films intentionally ignore these aspects in favor of others, that every movie serves a different purpose. Why is it that horror movies or sci-fi films are never seen come Oscar night? Because they are seen as "lesser genres". Should 'Friday the 13th' be judged the same way as 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'? Neither are a traditional drama, both have characters that could be seen a "shallow", but the two movies don't share the same purpose, and therefor, don't have the same responsibility to the audience. Not to say that there aren't "good movies" and "bad movies", cause there are, but this, in my opinion, isn't one of them.

The movie wasn't designed to be a huge box office smash. It was, again, designed to be a fan service to those familar with the game.

Over all, I just think that the movie was judged as if it was trying to be something that it never tried to be in the first place. It's like going over to a kid that's playing hop scotch and telling him that he sucks at jumping rope. In both cases, the kid is playing, but doing something completely different.

That said, I respect your opinion, that's why I give feedback, so I hope I'm not giving you the wrong impression by challenging you here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which I would agree with, in most cases. But this movie was quite obviously designed as a fan service for those people that did play that seven year old game. I completely understand why you didn't like the movie, because you had different expectations going in.

Nothing should ever be adapted just for the hardcore / in-the-know audience. Adaptations, by design, are meant to reach a much larger audience than the original product ever could.

Yes, video games have been making more money annually than movies (at least in the US; I don't know about other markets), but there are still more moviegoers worldwide than videogamers. So as I said, it's cool that they built upon elements for fans of the series (I expect that when viewing an adaptation), but you cannot make a Hollywood picture as a "fan service" and expect positive reviews from the uninitiated; you simply cannot alienate the majority of your audience.

Batman Begins was also an origin story, of a completely different genre, and had to do with a MUCH more recognized subject. I've never read a Superman comic or seen any of the television shows or movies, but I can still tell you a lot about the character of Clark Kent.

Are you saying it was okay for the characters to lack substance because Silent Hill wasn't an origin story and / or because they aren't icons such as Batman and Superman? If so, I would say the opposite is true.

Because Batman and Superman are icons known worldwide, filmmakers could easily slack off and rely on past interpretations. When creating something new (or, in this case, adapting something that isn't as widely known), more care should go into the characters because the majority of the audience has never heard of them before.

Except that in the case of Silent Hill, the purpose is to leave you with more questions that answers, as was tradition with the games.

I understand that. That's a trick horror movies have been using for years, but questions should be left at then end (for an inevitable sequel). Not the beginning. Not when it comes to what drives the main character.

The town or it's aura, in a sense, is the main character, hence why so much attention was paid to it.

Right, but Rose's extreme actions (RE: ditching Christopher, running from the cop) are never explained because too much attention was paid to the berg.

The character of Rose was quite nearly an exact duplicate of Harry Mason from the very first game. Hell, the first 15 or so minutes in the town are more or less a shot by shot run through of the first moments of the game.

Which is great for gamers. This gives you guys "mark out moments" and builds upon what you already know. In fact, I applaud this because it gave you something special, but didn't leave me (the unfamiliar) with any questions.

She wasn't given a lot of depth because she was, as she would have been in the game, the character's eyes. The viewer is supposed to experience everything as if it were being shown to them. It's like the "silent protangonists" that you see in RPGs all of the time. They're not silent because the producers couldn't think of dialouge for them, they're silent because they can be more easily identified with.

That's how it is in video games, not movies. They're two different beasts.

There's this belief that most have when watching (or critiquing) a movie that there are these certain 'things' that EVERY movie of EVERY genre has to have. What this tends to ignore is that certain genres or films intentionally ignore these aspects in favor of others, that every movie serves a different purpose. Why is it that horror movies or sci-fi films are never seen come Oscar night? Because they are seen as "lesser genres". Should 'Friday the 13th' be judged the same way as 'Robin Hood: Men in Tights'? Neither are a traditional drama, both have characters that could be seen a "shallow", but the two movies don't share the same purpose, and therefor, don't have the same responsibility to the audience. Not to say that there aren't "good movies" and "bad movies", cause there are, but this, in my opinion, isn't one of them.

I judge each movie based on other movies in its genre. So if I'm reviewing Brockback Mountain, I'm comparing it to other dramas (i.e. The Godfather) and romances (i.e. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Sin City was compared to other gritty action films (i.e. Pulp Fiction) and superhero adaptations (i.e. Spider-Man 2). This is because it's unfair to judge, say, The Princess Bride by the standards One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest set.

When I gave Silent Hill a two(-ish) out of five, I was comparing it to horror films that I have rated highly (i.e. Halloween, The Blair Witch Project) and those I've given low scores to (i.e. Saw, House of 1000 Corpses).

The movie wasn't designed to be a huge box office smash. It was, again, designed to be a fan service to those familar with the game.

Mmh. Every Hollywood movie is produced to reach (literally and figuratively) the largest audience possible, and make as much money as possible. If your statement were true, advertisements wouldn't have appeared at bus stops, in malls and other high-traffic areas. In fact, they only would have appeared on IGN and in PSM, EGM and other gaming magazines.

Over all, I just think that the movie was judged as if it was trying to be something that it never tried to be in the first place. It's like going over to a kid that's playing hop scotch and telling him that he sucks at jumping rope. In both cases, the kid is playing, but doing something completely different.

As I said before, I'm judging this as a horror film and nothing more.

That said, I respect your opinion, that's why I give feedback, so I hope I'm not giving you the wrong impression by challenging you here.

Not at all, and I respect yours as well. Arguments like this are why message boards were created. I keep these forums up and running because I want to read and take part in more discussions such as this; here we are, two guys with similar interests but different opinions, intelligently arguing a topic. I love this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) The door that Pyramid Head sliced through was wood in the normal Silent Hill, but in "dark" Silent Hill, everything is metal. You can see the hole close up and change back to wood after PH and the bugs disappear.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't 100% sure.

2) The bathroom door wasn't locked as far as I know, so she just walked out of the room.

Rose locked the door when she was hiding from the three guys with the bird, but never unlocked it.

3) Windows weren't broken because they were never in the "real" Silent Hill.

We'll talk about that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good show, methinks. Well-rounded in what it covered.

- Silent Hill is something I've barely heard of - D.W.'s referencs in the Oratory and my friend playing a demo yesterday is pretty much the extent. Not the sort of film I'd go to see really (even if Sean Bean is in it), but I could probably be persuaded if it meant skipping revision!

- That Mario Brothers story is ridiculous - I feel like the superior Briton I am when I read about stuff like that! :P

- Loved the following line from James:

"He's a loser in everything, including life"

For a few moments I was wondering if that meant he died along the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thoughts on the new music? It's all Final Fantasy-related, by the way.

I WAS GOING TO MENTION THAT!!

I like how the music throughout the show sounded more like the title sequence. Beforehand it was the cool Batman Beyond theme followed by that lame in-between music that I hated. Whilst I'm sad the theme's changed, the music overall is more consistent in this episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like how the music throughout the show sounded more like the title sequence. Beforehand it was the cool Batman Beyond theme followed by that lame in-between music that I hated. Whilst I'm sad the theme's changed, the music overall is more consistent in this episode.

Yeah, as much as I LOVE the BB theme, the transitional music didn't jive with it. Had I been able to find other BB tunes, I would have used them for the transitions and kept the BB theme. But obviously I couldn't. Plus I wanted a change.

EDIT: Hey! You're a Brit. Don't you mean "Batman of the Future"? :P

Edited by Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loved the new music, a LOT

Animezing segment was great as usual, though a little short. I really do want to check that out sometime.

Silent Hill review was good, but D.W. I want to see you throw yours up there, I'd like to see both sides of the coin.

Mario box story is still funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: Hey! You're a Brit. Don't you mean "Batman of the Future"? :P

I'm trying to fit in. :cry:

Aww. hug.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good show. I haven't yet seen Silent Hill (I'm seeing it Saturday), so I can't comment there yet. Hopefully, I'll be able to post a counter-argument because as everyone knows I'm a HUGE fan of the original Silent Hill video game.

Mike, they have made a series set of Onegai Twins (all 13 episodes) and I got it for like $30 at Best Buy; and it came with the soundtrack and I think maybe something else, but I can't remember. If you can find that set for that cheap, I'd definitely say get it if you're really interested in seeing the series. Of course, there's always eBay and I find anime for dirt cheap on there all the time.

The Segment was a little shorter because there was really nothing else I could explain about the show without ruining it for people interested in seeing it (which I gather some of you are). The characters are who they are and the plot is right there for you. It's a very straightforward series, so you can just sit back and watch the characters' daily lives unfold. I also didn't have any news bits or miscellaneous jibber-jabber after the review, so that pretty much explains it only being about 6 and a half minutes. Although I should have mentioned in the review that the soundtrack to the show is very, very good. It fits the up-and-down emotions of the show perfectly. I'm glad I'm sparking discussion about Onegai Twins, though. I haven't really gotten this kind of response on any of the other shows I've yet reviewed, so it's refreshing. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't really gotten this kind of response on any of the other shows I've yet reviewed, so it's refreshing. :happy:

Your video did a great job of hyping the anime, so it doesn't surprise me that the reaction towards your segment is so positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing should ever be adapted just for the hardcore / in-the-know audience. Adaptations, by design, are meant to reach a much larger audience than the original product ever could.

Yes, video games have been making more money annually than movies (at least in the US; I don't know about other markets), but there are still more moviegoers worldwide than videogamers. So as I said, it's cool that they built upon elements for fans of the series (I expect that when viewing an adaptation), but you cannot make a Hollywood picture as a "fan service" and expect positive reviews from the uninitiated; you simply cannot alienate the majority of your audience.

Except the intended audience wasn't horror movie fans, it was video game fans. If anyone was alienated, it's the fans of the game that opted not to see the movie because they listened to critics.

Are you saying it was okay for the characters to lack substance because Silent Hill wasn't an origin story and / or because they aren't icons such as Batman and Superman? If so, I would say the opposite is true.

Because Batman and Superman are icons known worldwide, filmmakers could easily slack off and rely on past interpretations. When creating something new (or, in this case, adapting something that isn't as widely known), more care should go into the characters because the majority of the audience has never heard of them before.

But the characters in the Silent Hill universe are completely secondary to the town itself, unlike in a superhero movie, in which characters are everything. Every game in the Silent Hill series stars a different main character, because Silent Hill isn't about any people or persons, but the actual town and it's secrets.

I understand that. That's a trick horror movies have been using for years, but questions should be left at then end (for an inevitable sequel). Not the beginning. Not when it comes to what drives the main character.

She wanted to help her daughter, while at the same time looking to find some answers as to the significance of the town (and why her daughter was screaming it in her sleep), but her husband was opposed, hence her desperation. I thought that was made pretty clear even in the short amount of time they devoted to it.

Right, but Rose's extreme actions (RE: ditching Christopher, running from the cop) are never explained because too much attention was paid to the berg.

She ditched Christopher because he was opposed to taking Sharon to the town. She ran from Cybil because she was established as being a nosy cop, not to mention that her frantic behavior at the gas station was more than enough to raise suspicion.

Not to mention this simple little conversation that would have most likely occured.

Cybil: So, where are you headed with this little girl in the middle of the night?

Rose: Silent Hill.

Cybil: *BOOM* STEP OUT OF THE CAR!

End of movie.

That's how it is in video games, not movies. They're two different beasts.

Except that this is a video game movie, a genre that's intended to combine the two. Since no one in the past has been able to get the formula right, it seems off, because it's different.

I judge each movie based on other movies in its genre. So if I'm reviewing Brockback Mountain, I'm comparing it to other dramas (i.e. The Godfather) and romances (i.e. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Sin City was compared to other gritty action films (i.e. Pulp Fiction) and superhero adaptations (i.e. Spider-Man 2). This is because it's unfair to judge, say, The Princess Bride by the standards One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest set.

When I gave Silent Hill a two(-ish) out of five, I was comparing it to horror films that I have rated highly (i.e. Halloween, The Blair Witch Project) and those I've given low scores to (i.e. Saw, House of 1000 Corpses).

See, I think that's the biggest problem. You're rating it as a horror movie instead of a video game movie.

If Silent Hill never existed before the movie, as in, no video games were ever made, no comic books, nothing, and then the movie came out, completely unchanged from the way it is now, I would have probably disliked it too.

Mmh. Every Hollywood movie is produced to reach (literally and figuratively) the largest audience possible, and make as much money as possible. If your statement were true, advertisements wouldn't have appeared at bus stops, in malls and other high-traffic areas. In fact, they only would have appeared on IGN and in PSM, EGM and other gaming magazines.

True, but I blame bad marketing for that, not the filmmaker. It's like when Fight Club came out and a bunch of people were pissed off because they thought it was an action movie.

As I said before, I'm judging this as a horror film and nothing more.

Again, it's not a horror movie, it's a video game movie. Fuck, judging it as a horror movie, with no video game connections whatsoever, not only is it not scary, it makes no sense.

See, I understand why you didn't like it, but by the same token, the movie wasn't intended for you.

Rose locked the door when she was hiding from the three guys with the bird, but never unlocked it.

Then she unlocked the door and walked out. They didn't lock her in, she locked it from her side. Gans probably didn't see the point in showing her unlock the door, when they could just cut to her already running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except the intended audience wasn't horror movie fans, it was video game fans. If anyone was alienated, it's the fans of the game that opted not to see the movie because they listened to critics.

Had it been released direct-to-DVD, such as FFVII: AC, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would agree with you: only the hardcore would know of its existence and would seek it out. But the second it was given a worldwide release (in nearly 3000 theaters; by Sony and TriStar no less), it became a movie for mass consumption -- by videogamers and non-gamers alike.

Are Stephen King and John Grisham adaptations only meant to reach their fans and / or avid readers? Were Spider-Man and X-Men meant to capture only comic book fanboys? No. So why is a video game adaptation so different?

And to say "the intended audience wasn't horror movie fans" seems silly to me, especially considering it's based on a survival horror game and was marketed as a horror film.

But the characters in the Silent Hill universe are completely secondary to the town itself, unlike in a superhero movie, in which characters are everything. Every game in the Silent Hill series stars a different main character, because Silent Hill isn't about any people or persons, but the actual town and it's secrets.

Again, this is a movie. Not a video game. It's okay that the town took center stage in both the game and film, but more depth should have been given to the characters in the film. You simply cannot neglect characterization in a film, not if you want it to be a success (at the box office and critically).

She wanted to help her daughter, while at the same time looking to find some answers as to the significance of the town (and why her daughter was screaming it in her sleep), but her husband was opposed, hence her desperation. I thought that was made pretty clear even in the short amount of time they devoted to it.

In writing (novels, short stories, movies, whatever) there's the rule of three. It's used to convey a point over time (short or long), so writers can show the situation rather than tell it. (Telling us what we need to know is the same as forcing a square peg into a round hole: you might be able to make it fit, but it won't feel as smooth.) Basically, bad writers tell, good writers show.

In the case of SH, had the director taken, say, 10 minutes after the cliff scene to show that Rose had attempted other cures (doctors, meds, shrinks) and that Christopher was behind those, we could relate to her and understand her pain. As it stands, we were told she tried those things and have to presume that she and her husband discussed a trip to Silent Hill, but, because we never see it, there's no connection to the character and her desperation.

She ran from Cybil because she was established as being a nosy cop, not to mention that her frantic behavior at the gas station was more than enough to raise suspicion.

Not to mention this simple little conversation that would have most likely occured.

Cybil: So, where are you headed with this little girl in the middle of the night?

Rose: Silent Hill.

Cybil: *BOOM* STEP OUT OF THE CAR!

End of movie.

All cops are nosey; it's their job. So I don't buy that she ran due to that. Plus it's not like she had to tell Cybil the truth.

Again: we're being told she's desperate. Because the set-up was weak -- because we weren't shown how long this has been going on, because we weren't shown her attempting other cures, because we weren't shown Christopher's unwillingness to visit Silent Hill -- there is no connection to Rose, and it feels like we're walking into a movie 10 minutes late.

That's how it is in video games, not movies. They're two different beasts.

Except that this is a video game movie, a genre that's intended to combine the two. Since no one in the past has been able to get the formula right, it seems off, because it's different.

No it's not. It's a movie that just so happens to be adapted from a video game -- a Hollywood movie which was made for wide release. That means it has to follow the general rules of cinema -- especially when it comes to storytelling and characterization -- and certain sacrifices need to be made when the game is translated to the screen. What game developers can get away with (RE: "silent characters"), filmmakers cannot.

When we play video games we become the characters because we're taking an active role in how the game, story and lives of the characters unfold. So characters aren't imbued with too many traits, because we're supposed to see ourselves in the avatar; we thrust ourselves into the game.

Movies, however, are a passive pastime. We watch with no say in how events develop. So it falls upon the filmmakers' shoulders to give very distinctive traits and motivations to characters.

See, I think that's the biggest problem. You're rating it as a horror movie instead of a video game movie.

RE: above.

If Silent Hill never existed before the movie, as in, no video games were ever made, no comic books, nothing, and then the movie came out, completely unchanged from the way it is now, I would have probably disliked it too.

What's funny is that I was going to ask you this exact question in my last post. :happy:

And that's what's wrong with how you're looking at this: it is a movie that was once a game. We're talking about the film. Not the game. Set the game aside. Forget about it. Stop comparing the two. Because you're fond of the games, you're seeing the movie through rose colored glasses and are willing to accept the flaws because "this is how it was in the game" (paraphrasing here).

Look at the movie as a movie, and the flaws are glaring.

Again, it's not a horror movie, it's a video game movie. Fuck, judging it as a horror movie, with no video game connections whatsoever, not only is it not scary, it makes no sense.

Jen actually made this claim during the show, but I edited it out because we were running long. :doh:

See, I understand why you didn't like it, but by the same token, the movie wasn't intended for you.

You're right: I don't like bad movies. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Had it been released direct-to-DVD, such as FFVII: AC, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would agree with you: only the hardcore would know of its existence and would seek it out. But the second it was given a worldwide release (in nearly 3000 theaters; by Sony and TriStar no less), it became a movie for mass consumption -- by videogamers and non-gamers alike.

Are Stephen King and John Grisham adaptations only meant to reach their fans and / or avid readers? Were Spider-Man and X-Men meant to capture only comic book fanboys? No. So why is a video game adaptation so different?

Yes. It's a movie. #1 reason for making a movie is money. The filmmaker's intention is always secondary (and sometimes worse than that). I'm not going to blame Gans for making money, nor am I going to blame the studio for advertising the movie. Plus, if anything, they've most likely had people with zero knowledge of the games see the movie and go to themselves "hmm... that was interesting. I wonder what the games are like."

Trip to gaming store (which is almost always near a theatre) = more money.

The main audience (and people that are going to enjoy the movie the most) are the fans of the games. Does that mean that anyone that didn't play the games won't enjoy it too? Not exactly. I've read a bunch of message boards, and a lot of people that didn't have any idea about Silent Hill were still able to come out of the movie happy.

So yeah, of course it was advertised. They would have been foolish not to, especially when they know they can add to that hardcore fanbase. No one is born a hardcore fan, they become hardcore fans. Movies reach a lot of people, like you said. It's pretty simple logic really.

And to say "the intended audience wasn't horror movie fans" seems silly to me, especially considering it's based on a survival horror game and was marketed as a horror film.

You say that the games are irrelevant, but then cite the games as a way to dicate the film's genre. Plus, the "based on a survival horror" argument went out the window when they turned Resident Evil into an action-fest.

As for marketing, I've already touched on that.

Again, this is a movie. Not a video game. It's okay that the town took center stage in both the game and film, but more depth should have been given to the characters in the film. You simply cannot neglect characterization in a film...

You're right, it's not a video game. It's a video game movie. Could the characters have been fleshed out a bit more? Yes. But the story didn't require it, and it would have only served to have made the already 2 hour movie even longer.

not if you want it to be a success (at the box office and critically)

Silent Hill is #1 in the box office right now, and critical success means absolutely nothing unless you're talking about a drama or a documentary.

In the case of SH, had the director taken, say, 10 minutes after the cliff scene to show that Rose had attempted other cures (doctors, meds, shrinks) and that Christopher was behind those, we could relate to her and understand her pain. As it stands, we were told she tried those things and have to presume that she and her husband discussed a trip to Silent Hill, but, because we never see it, there's no connection to the character and her desperation.

I'll bet you 10 bucks that when the DVD comes out, there will be deleted scenes about Rose and Christopher in the beginning. Studios dictate running times. They had to cut things down. Everything before they reach the town is frankly irrelevent, which is why so little time was devoted to it.

Again: we're being told she's desperate. Because the set-up was weak -- because we weren't shown how long this has been going on, because we weren't shown her attempting other cures, because we weren't shown Christopher's unwillingness to visit Silent Hill -- there is no connection to Rose, and it feels like we're walking into a movie 10 minutes late.

The movie could have literally started with Rose and Sharon in the SVU and the movie would have been fine in my eyes. If anything, Sharon convulsing in the grass and yelling "SILENT HILL!" in the opening is something I could have done without.

No it's not. It's a movie that just so happens to be adapted from a video game -- a Hollywood movie which was made for wide release. That means it has to follow the general rules of cinema -- especially when it comes to storytelling and characterization -- and certain sacrifices need to be made when the game is translated to the screen. What game developers can get away with (RE: "silent characters"), filmmakers cannot.

Sacrifices were made, in this case, characterization was sacrificed for atmosphere and story.

When we play video games we become the characters because we're taking an active role in how the game, story and lives of the characters unfold. So characters aren't imbued with too many traits, because we're supposed to see ourselves in the avatar; we thrust ourselves into the game.

Movies, however, are a passive pastime. We watch with no say in how events develop. So it falls upon the filmmakers' shoulders to give very distinctive traits and motivations to characters.

Just because something hasn't been done in the past doesn't mean that it can't. In this case, Rose is the avatar and we're just along for the ride. It's a passive interpretation of the interactive game.

And that's what's wrong with how you're looking at this: it is a movie that was once a game. We're talking about the film. Not the game. Set the game aside. Forget about it. Stop comparing the two. Because you're fond of the games, you're seeing the movie through rose colored glasses and are willing to accept the flaws because "this is how it was in the game" (paraphrasing here).

Look at the movie as a movie, and the flaws are glaring.

If the game never existed, then the movie wouldn't have been released, so no, I can't just toss the games aside.

The first thing I did when I sat down in the theatre was look over to my girlfriend and say "they'd better not fuck this up" so there goes the rose colored glasses argument. If anything, being a fan of the games made me more critical of the movie. And yes, there were a couple things I disliked.

1) The ending in the church could have been done better. That scene was begging for Pyramid Head to show up.

2) They changed the backstory of the town, so that sequel-wise, they basically fucked themselves in terms of options.

I enjoyed the movie for what it was and didn't bother trying to ask myself what it wasn't. Was it Citizen Kane? No, but it was a very well done adaptation that I legitimately had fun watching.

You're right: I don't like bad movies

Wrong. You liked Ultraviolet, which ironically, had a paper thin plot and was little more than eye candy, the same things that you critisized about Silent Hill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silent Hill was released to nearly 3,000 theaters. There is no way that it was intended to be a movie for the fans of the video games. I realize it's a popular game, but not one that they would expect to fill 3,000 theaters with. I went to the movie with three friends and none of them even knew it was a video game. This was clearly meant to be a horror film that anyone should go see. While the movie industry loves to make as much money as possible, it also hates losing money, and making a movie for one group of video game fans and putting it in 3,000 theaters is a huge waste of money.

Like it was said earlier, Final Fantasy: Advent Children was released straight to DVD. If you watch the movie and you've never played the games, you might not understand what's going on. That's why it was released on DVD, so only the fans that knew what was going on would see it, same with Ultimate Avengers. If Silent Hill was mainly for the fans of the game it should've either been released on DVD or it should've been given a small release. So by releasing it to as many theaters that tells me they expected everyone to go see it, not caring that most of them wouldn't understand all of them, because they are more concerned about getting some money in their pocket than they are about putting out a good product or pleasing the movie goers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silent Hill was released to nearly 3,000 theaters. There is no way that it was intended to be a movie for the fans of the video games. I realize it's a popular game, but not one that they would expect to fill 3,000 theaters with. I went to the movie with three friends and none of them even knew it was a video game. This was clearly meant to be a horror film that anyone should go see. While the movie industry loves to make as much money as possible, it also hates losing money, and making a movie for one group of video game fans and putting it in 3,000 theaters is a huge waste of money.

Like it was said earlier, Final Fantasy: Advent Children was released straight to DVD. If you watch the movie and you've never played the games, you might not understand what's going on. That's why it was released on DVD, so only the fans that knew what was going on would see it, same with Ultimate Avengers. If Silent Hill was mainly for the fans of the game it should've either been released on DVD or it should've been given a small release. So by releasing it to as many theaters that tells me they expected everyone to go see it, not caring that most of them wouldn't understand all of them, because they are more concerned about getting some money in their pocket than they are about putting out a good product or pleasing the movie goers.

I've already touched on that with my previous post. I never said that the only people that would enjoy the movie are the hardcore fans, only that they are the one's that the film appeals to the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.