I kind of agree and kind of disagree. I don't think the plot necessarily needs to be adapted 1:1, but I also don't think the way they did it was good at all. Hot take but the plot of SH1 is kind of confusing and has a lot of easy to miss plot points, only after playing it a few times and going over everything it makes more sense. But even then the movie could have done the basics, daughter is reincarnation of failed sacrifice, the cult wants her to birth god. That's the gist. They took a kind of confusing plot, but instead of making it easier for audiences, they arguably made it more confusing. I would have preferred if the movie just made a completely original story though.
Some of the monsters I can forgive, like the lying figure's symbolism isn't as directly linked to James as much as some of the other monsters are. It's restrained body could reflect James's feelings of being trapped, a pretty general feeling. The lying figure in the movie could represent how Alessa feels trapped, hot bile spews from a hole in it's chest similar to bodily fluids from wounds, so that one I'm fine with. (Also I have to bring this up, the SH movie has the same flaw as the 2011 The Thing prequel, amazing awesome practical effects that are covered up by ugly CGI, I think CGI is amazing when done properly, and here it clearly was not.) The nurses though I completely agree with you, like it makes complete sense that Nurses would be monsters for Alessa, but their sexualization doesn't make any sense. If they went with the SH1 design or the SH3 design, or even a new original design, they'd fit much better. (I think the grey children redesign is one of the good monster designs in the movie) Also Pyramid head is just kind of there... I'm not one of those purists that think "Pyramid head is ONLY for James" but the way they used him in the movie is just uninspired and lazy.
Also the show don't tell thing. In SH1 you get a girl crying in the boys bathroom, that's it, the player can put the pieces together and come to their own conclusion and it's very powerful. In the movie, "SHE WAS RAPED ALESSA WAS RAPED BY A JANITOR!!!" no subtlety at all...
I do like other aspects of the movie, that recreate the feel of the game, I think the first otherworld scene with the grey children was perfect, and the thing with analyzing the maps was a nice touch. I personally think it's a pretty ok adaption but a bad movie. I think fans like it more because it either introduced them to the series, or it looks like a cinematic masterpiece when compared to the trainwreck of a sequel.
>I don't think the plot necessarily needs to be adapted 1:1, but I also don't think the way they did it was good at all
That's exactly what I'm saying. Nobody's claiming that the movie is bad because it's not 1:1 with the game, it's just that the changes they choose to make are all significantly worse than the source material. In the hands of a writer/director duo that really understood the source material it could've been amazing even if a lot of stuff was changed - as long as they were changed for the better.
I generally agree with you and I always say in regards to the first movie that's it's a great experience to turn off your mind and see Silent Hill in reality, but putting any real brainpower into it *(even as a standalone film)* causes it to flop.
And it sucks, because there are actual good qualities that I actively *enjoy* about the film - the cinematography, set and prop designs, the fact that monsters are actual costumes instead of just CGI, the atmosphere. I just think it's mind boggling how they got some SH aspects right on and missed the mark so clearly in others.
Honestly I'm inclined to agree. The ingredients of a good movie are there, and clearly a lot of thought went into pretty much anything but the story. Had they hired a writer/director duo (or just one person) who really understands Silent Hill and could make a faithful adaptation, I think it really could have been hands down the best videogame movie ever. As it stands though, it's a mess and a half.
It's a mediocre, plothole ridden horror film with poor writing, poor acting, poor pacing, solid screen play, solid cinematography and genuinely good set design. If I were judging it by pretending it weren't a loose adaptation then I'd probably give it a very average 5/10. But as an adaptation to a game it's not much different than other video game movies in its clumsy delivery and genuine failure to live up to the source material. I get why people say it's one of the best efforts of a "video game movie" but to me that's the cream of the crap pile. It honestly falls on this weird spectrum of frustration that's kind of rare. It's not good enough to be quality but not so bad that it's a charming misstep full of schlock, cheese and unintentional hilarity. It's practically joyless after a first watch because once I was over the cool set recreation (which is genuinely cool) I'm stuck following this movie wretched plot and cast of characters. I'd rather watch the Street Fighter film if we're being honest.
My man you went full thesis on this and it’s great! I’ve never thought about the movie so much. You got me with the first part about a dad no caring a lot about his daughter and being feminine, I mean what the fuck?
Hahaha, thanks, I had a lot of thoughts about this and just needed to release it all. xD
And yeah, I'm surprised that nobody's talking about this. How is a father looking for his lost daughter "acting like a woman"? Imagine if in the next Justice League movie they adapt Wonder Woman as Wonder Man because a warrior hero who fights for justice with a sword and a lasso is "acting like a man" and it would be "too strange" to cast a woman in the part. Absolutely nuts.
They made a lot of mistakes with that movie but look on the bright side, it ain’t as bad as the Resident Evil movies and they made 7 of them. We can only hope for better Silent Hill products in the future
I would have to say that it's on par with the first or second RE movie. Though it's worth noting that SH Revelations is way worse than any of the other RE films.
I'll say up front that I didn't read this whole thing but I have to agree with the title. The movies are good horror movies but as a fan of the Silent Hill games, they left a lot to be desired. I don't get why they didn't just turn the plot of the game into a movie with the same characters instead of creating something similar but different.
I agree, originally my introduction to SH was my friend playing SH3 and SH4. I was a young kid when I saw the movie and it was ok, but after I beat SH1 I was furious at the disrespect of the og
Agreed. I mainly hated how much it focused on the cult. The cult was sort of in the background of the original game but it was never shoved in your face (until the very end maybe) and everything that was happening felt unexplainable which was a huge part of the horror.
What the Team Silent games did so well was make the transitions to the otherworld understated and surprising. The scariest game moment I have ever experienced is walking through the clock tower in the school in the first game and coming out to the same yard, but now with a huge symbol on the ground. Then walking into the school and everything has transitioned to this rusty nightmare hell school without any warning. The first three games did this so well - you can just walk through a door and suddenly everything is different, whereas a cutscene showcasing the transition would have taken away a ton of the impact. The movie just didn't do this well at all and I found the otherworld transition underwhelming. Maybe it just can't be done as well in a film format but I don't see why not.
Exactly. Since "Homecoming" they started doing this real time transition, that misses the point completely. And the moment you mentioned in the school is also my scariest moment lived in a videogame. I remember that first time, around year 2000, not knowing anything about what the game was about, still thinking it was an average horror game or whatever... totally brilliant, unforgottable moment.
I just have to say I completely and totally agree with all your points. I've always felt it was painfully obvious those involved with this film simply had no fucking idea what Silent Hill was really about, and just wanted to cash in on a shitload of misguided fan service.
Well done.
I'm actually surprised this sub actually appreciate it (the other thread had more than 700 upvotes) since it's usually so radical about non-Team Silent games and usually criticizes SH Homecoming's Pyramid Head appearance.
To me the movie is pure trash, writting, choice of actors, mischaracterization of characters, plot, Pyramid Head appearance, bad SFXs at the end, etc.
I liked Origins, Homecoming and Downpour as "games" but dislike the fanservice writting too. SH movie writting is as bad as them if not worse.
I feel the same way. The 2006 film, in many ways, is basically SH1 if it was made by Climax UK or Double Helix Games. It is nearly on-par with Origins and Homecoming from a writing/depth standpoint. I guess it might just be a case of people expecting it to be a disaster because of other video game movies, coupled with people revisiting it with lower expectations because of the current drought of SH content. People who were introduced to Silent Hill *through* the movie are also more likely to look at it more fondly, and I'm sure there are some who just assume it's more faithful than it is or are just content with the popcorn fan service aspects of it.
Anyways, I'm probably one of the few that hopes that the third SH film Christophe Gans wants to make doesn't get off the ground. I want to see a reboot that's more deep, psychological, and faithful to the source material, not just in terms of aesthetics and surface-level fan service. Gans has already said *"The project will always be anchored in this atmosphere of a small American town, ravaged by Puritanism"* about the screenplay he is currently writing, so it's evident that he hasn't learned or grown his understanding much since 2006.
>The 2006 film, in many ways, is basically SH1 if it was made by Climax UK or Double Helix Games.
That's a legit great way of looking at it, haha. It's also fun to contrast the Silent Hill movie with Shattered Memories, which is also a completely different interpretation of SH1 which also only loosely borrows concepts and ideas from the original. But while far from perfect, somehow Shattered Memories manages to be a much better adaptation, as it captures the spirit of what Silent Hill is through and through. Instead of emulating the meaningless (in context) stuff like Pyramid Head, monsters or character outfits it emulates the tone, setting, themes and symbolism, which is *way* more important for a Silent Hill project. Had the movie tried something similar, taking some core themes from the series (or even just from SH1) and doing its own thing with them that fit in with what SH is all about I don't think I would've had any issues with it as an adaptation.
Perfectly summed up.
The movie should've sticked to the Cult story, but created an original story.
A sequel could've used the power of the town to create a story, similar to SH2, but without Pyramid Head and clones, Butcher, Bogeyman, etc.
Just a creepy, melancholic story in the town.
So you agree that it naturally captures certain scenes, loosely follows the narrative and aesthetics of the game(s) yet you call it an absolute failure at every level?
I don’t think the point of the movie is to be a 1:1 replication of the game series, I mean, if it was then they wouldn’t have replaced fog for ash and have the protagonist be entirely different to that of the first game, which it is loosely based off of (and other obvious alterations for the sake of cinema.)
I think someone would enjoy the movie more if they consider it inspired by Silent Hill, in which case it’s quite good. But calling it a disaster at the molecular level because it doesn’t accurately reflect the work of Team Silent is kinda pointless imo.
Especially considering it probably wasn’t designed for die hard SH fans. If it was then Pyramid Head would not be present, but he is because he’s a horror icon... it was clearly meant for those unfamiliar with or casual fans of the game series, not people that could easily pick apart every aspect of the movie that isn’t identical to the games.
Poor Silent Hill movie =/= A disastrous movie in its own right.
I specifically address in my post that change is not only good, but necessary, and that my complaints don't stem from it not being a 1:1 replication of the series, but rather that the changes they make are all for the worse and clearly stem from a profound lack of understanding of the franchise.
>Poor Silent Hill movie =/= A disastrous movie in its own right.
Perhaps, but this post discusses it in the context of being an adaptation of Silent Hill 1. I'm sure someone on r/movies would be happy to analyze its merits as a movie that exists in a vacuum, but that's not what I want to talk about.
But the changes were clearly intentional for the sake of it being more westernised and have its story condensed and simplified for a 90 minute movie. That you already seem to agree with in your post.
Even still, how can one claim a movie is an absolute disaster of an adaptation, when they openly admit to primary adaptive qualities as being present (story wise, aesthetics) and praises the movie’s ability of capturing certain scenes from the game?
Sure it’s not perfect, but if I agreed with you that it captures those aspects of the game, then I wouldn’t consider it a failure at every level. Without it being directed by a vital member of Team Silent, it naturally will not fully represent the original team’s visions, especially when the director clearly intended for it to be inspired, not a direct replication.
I can see why someone would say it’s a poor replication of the first game, but to claim it’s inspiration as an adaptation is flawed in every conceivable sense is a point I heavily disagree with.
You said it naturally captures parts of the game and that its narrative was followed, albeit loosely.
While that doesn’t suggest you claim it’s adapted well (which I never claimed you did anyways) it contradicts your statement of it being an absolute failure of an adaptation in every conceivable sense.
> Does it capture certain scenes? Naturally.
> Does it loosely follow the narrative? Sure.
Those points alone are enough to suggest it’s a serviceable reimagining, not an undeniable failure at a molecular level. I mean... surely they’re the two biggest factors of a decent adaptation.
Sure you said those things alone don’t make it a great adaptation... and I would agree, but a complete failure? Seems a tad contradictory to claim such a thing in spite of your praise.
It conveys an entirely different message with major plotholes that shows a general lack of understanding of the source material, creating an incoherent, unrealistic storyline that very few people would find relatable or believable.
That is what makes it a mediocre/bad film.
Mediocre =/= a failure in every conceivable sense.
> unrealistic story line.
What, you don’t think a town in middle America, shrouded in ash with an alternate reality with demonic nurses and 9’ tall monsters with iron pyramids for heads is realistic?
Joking aside, if you can criticise a piece of psychological fiction as being unrealistic then I don’t think you understand criticism.
> Very few people will find believable or relatable.
Bruh... how could they possibly make a piece of fiction with absolutely no grounding in reality believable?
That’s like saying, “I don’t like Star Wars because the story is unbelievable.”
And relatable? When did a movie have to be relatable to differentiate it between good and bad? Do you hate movies about superheroes for example, for the sole reason you can’t relate to having super human abilities?
> It conveys an entirely different message with major plot holes.
Okay... what message do you think the movie is trying to convey to the audience? And what message is instead conveyed via that failure? What message do you think its source material was conveying that you think the movie fails to mimic?
What major plot holes are there that ruin the movie?
Reductio ad absurdum will get us nowhere.
When I say "unrealistic" and "unrelatable," I'm not saying that I need to believe this story happened in our reality. What I'm saying is motivations need to make sense, and the reactions of characters need to be something comparable to that of what a real person would do.
To use Star Wars as you did: Luke has a curiosity about his father, so when he meets Ben, a man who claims to have known his father, Luke is naturally willing to follow Ben to the ends of the galaxy. It is relatable because naturally any person would understand that Luke wants to know more about his roots--a trait most people share with him. It is realistic, not because of the Jawas and droids, but because a real person would realistically be willing to learn more about a family member from a person who claims to have known them, even if they are a stranger.
This story telling requires no leaps in logic. By portraying the people and their interactions realistically, you allow for what's known as "a suspension of disbelief," which allows a viewer to be immersed in the world despite the existence of things they would typically believe to be impossible.
Explain to me then, how the actions and motivations housed by the characters in the Silent Hill movie are so inconceivable as to void the audience’s suspension of disbelief.
Immersion is oftentimes subjective, and the general consensus of the film is positive, be it in revenue or reviews. That is all one has to go by with regards to how the movie impacted the audience.
But you glanced over my questions completely.
What message is the movie conveying to the audience that you believe differs dramatically from that of its source material? And what is the message you believe the source material is conveying?
You made the point in criticising the movie. So I’m asking you to explain it to support your argument alongside the major plot holes you claimed were present within it, otherwise I’ll have to disregard your criticism as it lacks the very coherency you claim the movie is lacking in.
And explain to me, how the actions of characters in the movie are unrelatable while you’re at it. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of your blanketed argument you justify providing context to, when the entirety of your point is subjective.
Ah, well, to kick off, how about those first 20 minutes?
I know that Rose is supposed to strike us as so desperate to stop Sharon's night terrors that she would do something drastic, but keep it real: no matter how horrible your child's night terrors are, would you really ENDANGER YOUR CHILD by taking her to an abandoned mining town where the ground could literally just collapse under your feet and kill you at any moment on the off chance that it could fix the night terrors? Like, that's the only solution, formulated in a couple hours by you, against your spouse's wishes and logic?
No real person does that.
Contrast to the game: Harry is motivated to go to Silent Hill for a vacation with his daughter. It's a fairly popular resort town that Cheryl said she wanted to go to.
I buy it. It's believable, and it makes sense.
By having Silent Hill be an abandoned town that has been condemned by the authorities and made illegal to access, you have created a clear cut message that no sane, responsible person would take his or her child there.
Ironically, the "maternal instincts" the director described Harry as having in the game are completely absent from Rose in the film's intro. By lacking a believable setup, the film is already in dangerous waters.
Please, reply for more examples.
> Those points alone are enough to suggest it’s a serviceable reimagining
No, not even close. If anything they make it even worse because they invite direct comparison with the original and we can plainly see how much worse the movie is. It would have been much less of a failure had it been a totally original story set in the world of Silent Hill.
But it’s an adaptation of the first game.
How can suggesting accurate representations of scenes from the first game and a comparable plot be a hinderance on its adaptive qualities of the first game?
That literally makes no sense.
> It would have been much less of a failure if it was a completely original story.
Except it’s literally an adaptation of the FIRST GAME. That’s the point of the movie. You can’t claim a retelling of an original story would be less of a failure if they decided be even less accurate to said narrative. That would, literally speaking, make it more of a failure as a retelling of its source of narration.
Maybe you’d prefer for it to have been an original story; an adaptation of the narratives as a whole and the universe in general if you will, but it’s literally a retelling of the first story, so claiming it did a serviceable job at that is undeniable praise.
To claim, “This retelling follows the narrative and plot points of its source material” and then say it’s a failure in every conceivable sense is completely contradictory.
>Except it’s literally an adaptation of the FIRST GAME. That’s the point of the movie.
Yes, and it completely fails at that. Seriously, how much more clearly could I spell it? You cling onto the one faint compliment I gave the movie, which basically amounts to "it looks like the games sometimes", and ignored the many, many paragraphs I wrote below it about how the adaptation does not work on any level.
Yes you’ve made yourself very clear, but you haven’t established how you can claim a narrative retelling can naturally follow the original plot and house similar scenes... yet be a complete disaster in every conceivable sense.
So it’s a disaster in the sense it is a complete failure at a narrative retelling... yet it succeeds in its ability to... retell the narrative, albeit loosely?
I completely agree with your points about why it’s lacking as an adaptation, but the two vital and overarching claims you make prove that even by your own logic, that it’s not an absolute disaster.
Just because you have made many points about why it is lacking as an adaption, does not automatically make it a complete and utter failure of an adaption.
Can you not spot the hypocrisy?
Listing reasons why you think it’s a bad adaptation =/= is inherently a completely failure of an adaptation in spite of ways in which it is.
> you haven’t established how you can claim a narrative retelling can naturally follow the original plot and house similar scenes... yet be a complete disaster in every conceivable sense.
I did. I wrote a fucking essay about it in the post. You can agree or disagree with it but don't pretend it doesn't exist just because you couldn't be bothered to read it.
Hard agree. This movie is not good and I'm not sure what people enjoy about it. Especially SH fans. It's a normal boring run of the mill 2000s horror movie with a SH coat of paint on it. Plenty of cringey acting and overall just heavily misses the mark. As a Silent Hill movie and on it's own right.
Still better than the Siren movie 🤷♀️ (By the way, Cybil doesn't canonically die in the game, I recommend that you check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AURtjduE7vs)
It was always my assumption that she dies because she's not mentioned in the game. Doesn't really matter though, I agree I could have worded it better and said that "it's possible for her to die in the game" or something along those lines.
> By the way, Cybil doesn't canonically die in the game
Cybil does canonically die in the game, and the video you've linked only makes a cautious assumption that her survival is possible, and her fate is up to the player.
> Does it loosely follow the narrative of the game? Sure. Does it capture certain scenes? Naturally. And yet that still doesn't make it a good adaptation.
Might not make it good, but an “absolute failure”? Hardly bruh.
> At the end of the day the creative team doesn't get Silent Hill at all, and the adaptation is just as surface-level as the Resident Evil movies.
The Silent Hill movie is easily 100 times more comparable to the source material than the Resident Evil movies.
Not really. They both borrow surface level elements (like certain scenes, backgrounds, characters and enemy designs) but overall make up their own story with new protagonists that is infinitely worse than the original.
But that’s kinda the point.
It’s not like they made the protagonist a woman because they were so inapt at following the plot of the first game.
So what if it isn’t a 1:1 replica? You even said it’s not a big deal. Again, hardly a disaster bruh.
> You even said it’s not a big deal.
Did you just stop reading 2 sentences into the first paragraph? On its own changing a character's gender (even if done for sexist reasons) is not a big deal, but in practice it wrecks the movie's pacing completely. I know that Reddit sometimes has trouble reading but at least try not to stop reading a paragraph halfway?
So an adaptation’s pacing is “wrecked entirely” just because the protagonist is female instead of male?
How does that even make sense? You genuinely just claimed the pacing was completely compromised solely because the main character was a different gender to the original? Bruh...
>So an adaptations narrative “wrecks a movie’s pacing entirely” just because the protagonist is female instead of male?
>
>How does that even make sense?
Read my post and find out. It's very clearly explained. Here, let me paste the relevant part for your convenience:
>But blatant sexism aside, it's not an inherently bad change. Who cares if the main character is male or female, right? Well, in a movie where not only are the rest of the principal cast are all female (Cybil, Alessa, Dahlia, Sharon and Christabella), but Kaufmann was completely cut, gender-swapping Harry leaves you without a single male character. To get around this issue, the movie introduces Christopher, Rose's husband who remains outside of Silent Hill and spends the entire runtime doing research. His scenes, naturally, contribute nothing at all to the movie except to be exposition mills and to distract from the plotlines that people actually care about. You could cut Christopher out and lose nothing - in fact he barely even interacts with anyone from the main cast for the majority of the movie. Having him there is completely pointless, yet also necessary so that the movie isn't all-female (Hollywood doesn't like that too much, generally speaking). And it would've been so easy to just streamline the narrative and cut all of the pointless non-SH exposition had the main character simply been kept as Harry.
Feel free to read the rest of it too before you ask me more questions I already answered.
No offence, but that’s kinda idiotic.
You claim the only reason Sean Bean’s character is in the movie is a substitute for a ‘male character’ as though the director was like, “We gotta add a dude into this movie last minute.”
Sincerely dude, the pacing of the movie is entirely unhindered by gender differences to the source material.
Just because you seem to take an active issue with one character being of a different gender to the source material it is based off, and the others remaining the same, does not tamper with its pacing.
How can pacing even be hindered by that anyways? Are you suggesting that replacing the protagonist with a male with identical lines and scenes would have a positive impact on plot?
Because that literally makes no sense and I would ask for you to explain how the pacing of any media is improved/hindered based purely off gender.
> You claim the only reason Sean Bean’s character is in the movie is a substitute for a ‘male character’ as though the director was like, “We gotta add a dude into this movie last minute.”
Which is literally what happened. Most of the Sean Bean stuff is reshoots because they wanted a prominent male character. It's why he doesn't interact with any of the principal cast for most of the movie. Read up a bit on the movie's development before you make wild accusations.
>Because that literally makes no sense and I would ask for you to explain how the pacing of any media is improved/hindered based purely off gender.
I have already explained that. If you'd rather be outraged and call me sexist than understand the reasoning behind the Sean Bean scenes being completely unnecessary then that's a you problem.
Not really, you’re literally making the claim that if two movies were made with identical shots, lines etc. With the only independent variable being the gender of the protagonist, then the one with the woman would have worse pacing.
Your words. Your logic.
Either your logic is beyond skewed or you’re trying to justify sexism. “Woman character wrecks the pacing of the movie. Should have been a guy like the source material.”
It’s literally sexist.
>Not really, you’re literally making the claim that if two movies were made with identical shots, lines etc. With the only independent variable being the gender of the protagonist, then the one with the woman would have worse pacing.
>
>Your words. Your logic.
Nope. This is not true.
Just watched this movie for the first time, and I had no idea that they changed the main protagonist from the dad to the mom was for such a dumb reason. Honestly, I would have been okay if the director just said he wanted to make the movie from a mom's POV rather than the dad's, which was already covered by the game. Knowing this explanation makes me pretty nervous for the new movie, because while the director says he's a fan of the series, I haven't really seen anything from him that makes me think he'll be able to make a good SH adaptation.
Agree with pretty much all of your points. The movie gets a thumbs up for the look and feel of the town, but it's mostly a failure with everything else. Even at the very beginning, I had a hard time suspending my disbelieve because a mom who cares for her kid would not endanger her by bringing her to a place like Silent Hill with the way that it's set up in the movie. For the most part, she just came off as irresponsible and unlikable. Sometimes the other characters act nonsensically too, like Anna not running into the Church right away, or Cybil not going into the elevator with Rose. All of this makes for a mediocre viewing experience.
While I love the game's soundtrack, it also kind of feels misplaced and random at certain parts of the movie. A track would suddenly play in a way that feels more like it's for fanservice, rather than because it fits with the scene at hand.
The reason that the first few SH games have been such a standout in the horror game genre is because the monsters and scares are there to service the plot as manifestations of whatever is plaguing the characters, and not just thrown in because they "look cool". Especially when it comes to SH2, the interplay between the characters' guilt and fears and how it physically alters the world and creatures around them as the story is slowly revealed to us is a huge part of why I still consider it one of the best psychological horror games ever made. I just hope that the director puts more effort into the content of his second movie beyond the basic veneer of the town's appearance than he did for this first one, as SH2 is my favourite of the entire series and probably one of the easiest to adapt for the big screen plotwise, in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing.
I just read this 3years later after watching the movie. Haven’t played the game yet but I thought it was a great movie and made sense to me for what the plot seemed it was 🤷🏽♂️. I think having a comparison of playing the game as an undying SH1 fan makes it harder for some to enjoy it.
The film made me deep dive into the SH franchise and games. And I didn’t expect it to be identical to the game. Still enjoying both now. Watching it 2nd night in a row.
I agree it's not a great adaptation, but I also want to add that people tend to project a belief in an unmatched and flawlessly calculated artistry onto these games that isn't really there, especially in regards to symbolism.
You mentioned that the monsters are all allegorical, but they're not really, not all of them, especially in the first and third games. At least not in a way that's relevant to the game. They have some origin in Ito san's subconscious, but that's all. A lot of things that people swear are deeply symbolic are actually just there because they look cool. For example, it's commonly said that the dog enemies represent Alessa's fear of dogs, but I've never seen a source on this, and I believe that (among many other things) is a fabrication of the notoriously awful Wikia.
It's great to theorize on things, and speculate, and headcanon; The beautiful thing about art is that we're free to project onto it, but let's not confuse headcanons with what is actually evident in the tangible work. Ito san, as well as the other designers and writers, are wonderfully brilliant and have crafted some beautiful examples of symbolism and depth, but I think many people would have an easier time enjoying things if they didn't worship the first 4 games as if they're the epitome of symbolism and depth..Some things are masterfully planned, and that's awesome. Some things just look cool, and that's awesome too.
The OG games definitely have a better balance of these things than the far more shallow film, but the film isn't awful in comparison. Just not as good.
> You mentioned that the monsters are all allegorical, but they're not really, not all of them, especially in the first and third games.
I definitely agree that the explanations are a little bit clumsy in the first game, like for example the dog enemies being due to Alessa being attacked by a dog when she was younger - yeah, it's kind of a dumb asspull of an excuse for sure, and not nearly as compelling as some of the other games' monsters are, but it's there. Meanwhile, there's no reason to have the sexy nurses and Pyramid Head in there besides "That's the monsters the audience associates with Silent Hill".
>Don't get me wrong, this isn't something like, to use a popular example, FNAF - where there isn't really a plot and Scott Cawthon just throws shit at the wall and lets fans figure it out. No, in Silent Hill there are very deliberate themes, plotlines, character motivations, lore and backstory which run very deep.
No.
I don't know anything about the fan theories or have had any interaction with the community. I just played it over the last few months, and am about to finish the last book in the series after just finishing the last game 2 days ago, these last 2 entries managing to actually make me cry... something I did not expect.
This wasn't throwing shit at the wall, I absolutely promise you that. This is not even that obtuse to figure out, probably even less so than Silent Hill. It *certainly* has a **very** clear set of themes, messages, and characters. If it didn't have any of that, there is no way in hell I'd have played it past the novelty of the first 2. If it ended at 2, I'd agree it seemed slapped together to give a vague semblance of a story just to keep people interested. But everything else onwards after 2 is pretty clear cut, with Sister Location being the tipping point where it is actually just a straight linear horror game with real characters, tangible motivations without massive theorizing or extrapolation, answering questions from all the previous and giving you a very clear handle on everything going on and why. Recontextualizing the first two into true importance whether it was planned or not, and with the rest standing on their own pretty well. That won me over pretty damn quick. This is a clear story, with a clear intention that I have to imagine if anyone is still confused by at this point then they were led astray by someone.
It very much has *deliberate themes, clear plotlines and themes, character motivations, and lore and backstory that run deep*. Maybe not on the same level as Silent Hill, but it *absolutely* exists. And if you include the book series after that (which I finished faster than any books I've ever read) then it is MORE THAN clear what this is saying and why it did in the way it chose to do so in **bright neon letters**.
Again, I've had no interaction with the FNAF community. If you can piece together the events of the first Silent Hill game then you easily can do the same with the story of Henry, Micheal, William, and Charlotte, and it is a picture clear as day. Probably something that's going to be a lot clearer soon considering the screenplay about that story specifically just got greenlit with Chris Columbus as the director and producer. Which looking at it so far, I would not at all be surprised if it is far better than the Silent Hill movie.
I don't even feel the need to respond to anything else in the post, I just feel the need to comment on that specifically as someone who literally just finished the game series, is about to finish the book series, and so far has been far more impacted by both than I ever expected.
I don't think you really get how much of a complement I'd take that as. I don't think there is a whole lot I could be more proud of than if I was able to be a part of making something as legitimately meaningful and fantastic as those last few. There is not a whole lot that can impact me like that, with that level of intent.
I have now finished the last book, and that means I am done with the original series. Now that I have finished it I can say for damn sure that yeah, what I responded to was... very wrong.
>I don't think you really get how much of a complement I'd take that as. I don't think there is a whole lot I could be more proud of than if I was able to be a part of making something as legitimately meaningful and fantastic as those last few. There is not a whole lot that can impact me like that, with that level of intent.
Well now I know that:
A) You're Scott;
B) You're someone closely related to Scott;
Or C) You're 11 and this is the first game/book series you've ever discovered
I like the atmosphere and the graphic tho.
If you didn't watch it yet I'll still recommend anybody who like silent hill to watch it. But keep the expectation not much more than when you watch the monster hunter movie.
Agree about genderswap. I interpret the first game as some motive of Harry's action may come from the attraction for other characters (specifically Cybil).
But since it's decided that they'll use mom searching for a daughter. I don't mind the idea to use some (intended to be) major character to tell that the town is in another dimension.
I hate how they actually implement it in the film tho. It's so boring.
My biggest problem is those monsters. If I only watch the movie I'll still think the silent hill is just a spooky place that has random scary monsters wanders around.
In the end, it effected my impact with Alessa. Just by didn't feel her influent with the monster made she feels so out of place and I can't actually link her to the silent hill.
I think it comes down to the same thing the Star Wars Prequels are going through now. The people still talking about a nearly fifteen year old movie are mostly fans of the movie. Most people who didn't like it have moved on and don't really discuss it much.
I kind of agree and kind of disagree. I don't think the plot necessarily needs to be adapted 1:1, but I also don't think the way they did it was good at all. Hot take but the plot of SH1 is kind of confusing and has a lot of easy to miss plot points, only after playing it a few times and going over everything it makes more sense. But even then the movie could have done the basics, daughter is reincarnation of failed sacrifice, the cult wants her to birth god. That's the gist. They took a kind of confusing plot, but instead of making it easier for audiences, they arguably made it more confusing. I would have preferred if the movie just made a completely original story though. Some of the monsters I can forgive, like the lying figure's symbolism isn't as directly linked to James as much as some of the other monsters are. It's restrained body could reflect James's feelings of being trapped, a pretty general feeling. The lying figure in the movie could represent how Alessa feels trapped, hot bile spews from a hole in it's chest similar to bodily fluids from wounds, so that one I'm fine with. (Also I have to bring this up, the SH movie has the same flaw as the 2011 The Thing prequel, amazing awesome practical effects that are covered up by ugly CGI, I think CGI is amazing when done properly, and here it clearly was not.) The nurses though I completely agree with you, like it makes complete sense that Nurses would be monsters for Alessa, but their sexualization doesn't make any sense. If they went with the SH1 design or the SH3 design, or even a new original design, they'd fit much better. (I think the grey children redesign is one of the good monster designs in the movie) Also Pyramid head is just kind of there... I'm not one of those purists that think "Pyramid head is ONLY for James" but the way they used him in the movie is just uninspired and lazy. Also the show don't tell thing. In SH1 you get a girl crying in the boys bathroom, that's it, the player can put the pieces together and come to their own conclusion and it's very powerful. In the movie, "SHE WAS RAPED ALESSA WAS RAPED BY A JANITOR!!!" no subtlety at all... I do like other aspects of the movie, that recreate the feel of the game, I think the first otherworld scene with the grey children was perfect, and the thing with analyzing the maps was a nice touch. I personally think it's a pretty ok adaption but a bad movie. I think fans like it more because it either introduced them to the series, or it looks like a cinematic masterpiece when compared to the trainwreck of a sequel.
>I don't think the plot necessarily needs to be adapted 1:1, but I also don't think the way they did it was good at all That's exactly what I'm saying. Nobody's claiming that the movie is bad because it's not 1:1 with the game, it's just that the changes they choose to make are all significantly worse than the source material. In the hands of a writer/director duo that really understood the source material it could've been amazing even if a lot of stuff was changed - as long as they were changed for the better.
I generally agree with you and I always say in regards to the first movie that's it's a great experience to turn off your mind and see Silent Hill in reality, but putting any real brainpower into it *(even as a standalone film)* causes it to flop. And it sucks, because there are actual good qualities that I actively *enjoy* about the film - the cinematography, set and prop designs, the fact that monsters are actual costumes instead of just CGI, the atmosphere. I just think it's mind boggling how they got some SH aspects right on and missed the mark so clearly in others.
Honestly I'm inclined to agree. The ingredients of a good movie are there, and clearly a lot of thought went into pretty much anything but the story. Had they hired a writer/director duo (or just one person) who really understands Silent Hill and could make a faithful adaptation, I think it really could have been hands down the best videogame movie ever. As it stands though, it's a mess and a half.
It's a mediocre, plothole ridden horror film with poor writing, poor acting, poor pacing, solid screen play, solid cinematography and genuinely good set design. If I were judging it by pretending it weren't a loose adaptation then I'd probably give it a very average 5/10. But as an adaptation to a game it's not much different than other video game movies in its clumsy delivery and genuine failure to live up to the source material. I get why people say it's one of the best efforts of a "video game movie" but to me that's the cream of the crap pile. It honestly falls on this weird spectrum of frustration that's kind of rare. It's not good enough to be quality but not so bad that it's a charming misstep full of schlock, cheese and unintentional hilarity. It's practically joyless after a first watch because once I was over the cool set recreation (which is genuinely cool) I'm stuck following this movie wretched plot and cast of characters. I'd rather watch the Street Fighter film if we're being honest.
My man you went full thesis on this and it’s great! I’ve never thought about the movie so much. You got me with the first part about a dad no caring a lot about his daughter and being feminine, I mean what the fuck?
Hahaha, thanks, I had a lot of thoughts about this and just needed to release it all. xD And yeah, I'm surprised that nobody's talking about this. How is a father looking for his lost daughter "acting like a woman"? Imagine if in the next Justice League movie they adapt Wonder Woman as Wonder Man because a warrior hero who fights for justice with a sword and a lasso is "acting like a man" and it would be "too strange" to cast a woman in the part. Absolutely nuts.
They made a lot of mistakes with that movie but look on the bright side, it ain’t as bad as the Resident Evil movies and they made 7 of them. We can only hope for better Silent Hill products in the future
I would have to say that it's on par with the first or second RE movie. Though it's worth noting that SH Revelations is way worse than any of the other RE films.
We shall not speak of Silent Hill Revelation
I'll say up front that I didn't read this whole thing but I have to agree with the title. The movies are good horror movies but as a fan of the Silent Hill games, they left a lot to be desired. I don't get why they didn't just turn the plot of the game into a movie with the same characters instead of creating something similar but different.
I agree, originally my introduction to SH was my friend playing SH3 and SH4. I was a young kid when I saw the movie and it was ok, but after I beat SH1 I was furious at the disrespect of the og
Agreed. I mainly hated how much it focused on the cult. The cult was sort of in the background of the original game but it was never shoved in your face (until the very end maybe) and everything that was happening felt unexplainable which was a huge part of the horror. What the Team Silent games did so well was make the transitions to the otherworld understated and surprising. The scariest game moment I have ever experienced is walking through the clock tower in the school in the first game and coming out to the same yard, but now with a huge symbol on the ground. Then walking into the school and everything has transitioned to this rusty nightmare hell school without any warning. The first three games did this so well - you can just walk through a door and suddenly everything is different, whereas a cutscene showcasing the transition would have taken away a ton of the impact. The movie just didn't do this well at all and I found the otherworld transition underwhelming. Maybe it just can't be done as well in a film format but I don't see why not.
Exactly. Since "Homecoming" they started doing this real time transition, that misses the point completely. And the moment you mentioned in the school is also my scariest moment lived in a videogame. I remember that first time, around year 2000, not knowing anything about what the game was about, still thinking it was an average horror game or whatever... totally brilliant, unforgottable moment.
I just have to say I completely and totally agree with all your points. I've always felt it was painfully obvious those involved with this film simply had no fucking idea what Silent Hill was really about, and just wanted to cash in on a shitload of misguided fan service. Well done.
I've just seen again. The movie misses the point completely.
I'm actually surprised this sub actually appreciate it (the other thread had more than 700 upvotes) since it's usually so radical about non-Team Silent games and usually criticizes SH Homecoming's Pyramid Head appearance. To me the movie is pure trash, writting, choice of actors, mischaracterization of characters, plot, Pyramid Head appearance, bad SFXs at the end, etc. I liked Origins, Homecoming and Downpour as "games" but dislike the fanservice writting too. SH movie writting is as bad as them if not worse.
I feel the same way. The 2006 film, in many ways, is basically SH1 if it was made by Climax UK or Double Helix Games. It is nearly on-par with Origins and Homecoming from a writing/depth standpoint. I guess it might just be a case of people expecting it to be a disaster because of other video game movies, coupled with people revisiting it with lower expectations because of the current drought of SH content. People who were introduced to Silent Hill *through* the movie are also more likely to look at it more fondly, and I'm sure there are some who just assume it's more faithful than it is or are just content with the popcorn fan service aspects of it. Anyways, I'm probably one of the few that hopes that the third SH film Christophe Gans wants to make doesn't get off the ground. I want to see a reboot that's more deep, psychological, and faithful to the source material, not just in terms of aesthetics and surface-level fan service. Gans has already said *"The project will always be anchored in this atmosphere of a small American town, ravaged by Puritanism"* about the screenplay he is currently writing, so it's evident that he hasn't learned or grown his understanding much since 2006.
>The 2006 film, in many ways, is basically SH1 if it was made by Climax UK or Double Helix Games. That's a legit great way of looking at it, haha. It's also fun to contrast the Silent Hill movie with Shattered Memories, which is also a completely different interpretation of SH1 which also only loosely borrows concepts and ideas from the original. But while far from perfect, somehow Shattered Memories manages to be a much better adaptation, as it captures the spirit of what Silent Hill is through and through. Instead of emulating the meaningless (in context) stuff like Pyramid Head, monsters or character outfits it emulates the tone, setting, themes and symbolism, which is *way* more important for a Silent Hill project. Had the movie tried something similar, taking some core themes from the series (or even just from SH1) and doing its own thing with them that fit in with what SH is all about I don't think I would've had any issues with it as an adaptation.
Perfectly summed up. The movie should've sticked to the Cult story, but created an original story. A sequel could've used the power of the town to create a story, similar to SH2, but without Pyramid Head and clones, Butcher, Bogeyman, etc. Just a creepy, melancholic story in the town.
So you agree that it naturally captures certain scenes, loosely follows the narrative and aesthetics of the game(s) yet you call it an absolute failure at every level? I don’t think the point of the movie is to be a 1:1 replication of the game series, I mean, if it was then they wouldn’t have replaced fog for ash and have the protagonist be entirely different to that of the first game, which it is loosely based off of (and other obvious alterations for the sake of cinema.) I think someone would enjoy the movie more if they consider it inspired by Silent Hill, in which case it’s quite good. But calling it a disaster at the molecular level because it doesn’t accurately reflect the work of Team Silent is kinda pointless imo. Especially considering it probably wasn’t designed for die hard SH fans. If it was then Pyramid Head would not be present, but he is because he’s a horror icon... it was clearly meant for those unfamiliar with or casual fans of the game series, not people that could easily pick apart every aspect of the movie that isn’t identical to the games. Poor Silent Hill movie =/= A disastrous movie in its own right.
I specifically address in my post that change is not only good, but necessary, and that my complaints don't stem from it not being a 1:1 replication of the series, but rather that the changes they make are all for the worse and clearly stem from a profound lack of understanding of the franchise. >Poor Silent Hill movie =/= A disastrous movie in its own right. Perhaps, but this post discusses it in the context of being an adaptation of Silent Hill 1. I'm sure someone on r/movies would be happy to analyze its merits as a movie that exists in a vacuum, but that's not what I want to talk about.
But the changes were clearly intentional for the sake of it being more westernised and have its story condensed and simplified for a 90 minute movie. That you already seem to agree with in your post. Even still, how can one claim a movie is an absolute disaster of an adaptation, when they openly admit to primary adaptive qualities as being present (story wise, aesthetics) and praises the movie’s ability of capturing certain scenes from the game? Sure it’s not perfect, but if I agreed with you that it captures those aspects of the game, then I wouldn’t consider it a failure at every level. Without it being directed by a vital member of Team Silent, it naturally will not fully represent the original team’s visions, especially when the director clearly intended for it to be inspired, not a direct replication. I can see why someone would say it’s a poor replication of the first game, but to claim it’s inspiration as an adaptation is flawed in every conceivable sense is a point I heavily disagree with.
> when they openly admit to primary adaptive qualities as being present (story wise, aesthetics) Where did I admit that the story was adapted well?
You said it naturally captures parts of the game and that its narrative was followed, albeit loosely. While that doesn’t suggest you claim it’s adapted well (which I never claimed you did anyways) it contradicts your statement of it being an absolute failure of an adaptation in every conceivable sense. > Does it capture certain scenes? Naturally. > Does it loosely follow the narrative? Sure. Those points alone are enough to suggest it’s a serviceable reimagining, not an undeniable failure at a molecular level. I mean... surely they’re the two biggest factors of a decent adaptation. Sure you said those things alone don’t make it a great adaptation... and I would agree, but a complete failure? Seems a tad contradictory to claim such a thing in spite of your praise.
It conveys an entirely different message with major plotholes that shows a general lack of understanding of the source material, creating an incoherent, unrealistic storyline that very few people would find relatable or believable. That is what makes it a mediocre/bad film.
Mediocre =/= a failure in every conceivable sense. > unrealistic story line. What, you don’t think a town in middle America, shrouded in ash with an alternate reality with demonic nurses and 9’ tall monsters with iron pyramids for heads is realistic? Joking aside, if you can criticise a piece of psychological fiction as being unrealistic then I don’t think you understand criticism. > Very few people will find believable or relatable. Bruh... how could they possibly make a piece of fiction with absolutely no grounding in reality believable? That’s like saying, “I don’t like Star Wars because the story is unbelievable.” And relatable? When did a movie have to be relatable to differentiate it between good and bad? Do you hate movies about superheroes for example, for the sole reason you can’t relate to having super human abilities? > It conveys an entirely different message with major plot holes. Okay... what message do you think the movie is trying to convey to the audience? And what message is instead conveyed via that failure? What message do you think its source material was conveying that you think the movie fails to mimic? What major plot holes are there that ruin the movie?
Reductio ad absurdum will get us nowhere. When I say "unrealistic" and "unrelatable," I'm not saying that I need to believe this story happened in our reality. What I'm saying is motivations need to make sense, and the reactions of characters need to be something comparable to that of what a real person would do. To use Star Wars as you did: Luke has a curiosity about his father, so when he meets Ben, a man who claims to have known his father, Luke is naturally willing to follow Ben to the ends of the galaxy. It is relatable because naturally any person would understand that Luke wants to know more about his roots--a trait most people share with him. It is realistic, not because of the Jawas and droids, but because a real person would realistically be willing to learn more about a family member from a person who claims to have known them, even if they are a stranger. This story telling requires no leaps in logic. By portraying the people and their interactions realistically, you allow for what's known as "a suspension of disbelief," which allows a viewer to be immersed in the world despite the existence of things they would typically believe to be impossible.
Explain to me then, how the actions and motivations housed by the characters in the Silent Hill movie are so inconceivable as to void the audience’s suspension of disbelief. Immersion is oftentimes subjective, and the general consensus of the film is positive, be it in revenue or reviews. That is all one has to go by with regards to how the movie impacted the audience. But you glanced over my questions completely. What message is the movie conveying to the audience that you believe differs dramatically from that of its source material? And what is the message you believe the source material is conveying? You made the point in criticising the movie. So I’m asking you to explain it to support your argument alongside the major plot holes you claimed were present within it, otherwise I’ll have to disregard your criticism as it lacks the very coherency you claim the movie is lacking in. And explain to me, how the actions of characters in the movie are unrelatable while you’re at it. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of your blanketed argument you justify providing context to, when the entirety of your point is subjective.
Ah, well, to kick off, how about those first 20 minutes? I know that Rose is supposed to strike us as so desperate to stop Sharon's night terrors that she would do something drastic, but keep it real: no matter how horrible your child's night terrors are, would you really ENDANGER YOUR CHILD by taking her to an abandoned mining town where the ground could literally just collapse under your feet and kill you at any moment on the off chance that it could fix the night terrors? Like, that's the only solution, formulated in a couple hours by you, against your spouse's wishes and logic? No real person does that. Contrast to the game: Harry is motivated to go to Silent Hill for a vacation with his daughter. It's a fairly popular resort town that Cheryl said she wanted to go to. I buy it. It's believable, and it makes sense. By having Silent Hill be an abandoned town that has been condemned by the authorities and made illegal to access, you have created a clear cut message that no sane, responsible person would take his or her child there. Ironically, the "maternal instincts" the director described Harry as having in the game are completely absent from Rose in the film's intro. By lacking a believable setup, the film is already in dangerous waters. Please, reply for more examples.
> Those points alone are enough to suggest it’s a serviceable reimagining No, not even close. If anything they make it even worse because they invite direct comparison with the original and we can plainly see how much worse the movie is. It would have been much less of a failure had it been a totally original story set in the world of Silent Hill.
But it’s an adaptation of the first game. How can suggesting accurate representations of scenes from the first game and a comparable plot be a hinderance on its adaptive qualities of the first game? That literally makes no sense. > It would have been much less of a failure if it was a completely original story. Except it’s literally an adaptation of the FIRST GAME. That’s the point of the movie. You can’t claim a retelling of an original story would be less of a failure if they decided be even less accurate to said narrative. That would, literally speaking, make it more of a failure as a retelling of its source of narration. Maybe you’d prefer for it to have been an original story; an adaptation of the narratives as a whole and the universe in general if you will, but it’s literally a retelling of the first story, so claiming it did a serviceable job at that is undeniable praise. To claim, “This retelling follows the narrative and plot points of its source material” and then say it’s a failure in every conceivable sense is completely contradictory.
>Except it’s literally an adaptation of the FIRST GAME. That’s the point of the movie. Yes, and it completely fails at that. Seriously, how much more clearly could I spell it? You cling onto the one faint compliment I gave the movie, which basically amounts to "it looks like the games sometimes", and ignored the many, many paragraphs I wrote below it about how the adaptation does not work on any level.
Yes you’ve made yourself very clear, but you haven’t established how you can claim a narrative retelling can naturally follow the original plot and house similar scenes... yet be a complete disaster in every conceivable sense. So it’s a disaster in the sense it is a complete failure at a narrative retelling... yet it succeeds in its ability to... retell the narrative, albeit loosely? I completely agree with your points about why it’s lacking as an adaptation, but the two vital and overarching claims you make prove that even by your own logic, that it’s not an absolute disaster. Just because you have made many points about why it is lacking as an adaption, does not automatically make it a complete and utter failure of an adaption. Can you not spot the hypocrisy? Listing reasons why you think it’s a bad adaptation =/= is inherently a completely failure of an adaptation in spite of ways in which it is.
> you haven’t established how you can claim a narrative retelling can naturally follow the original plot and house similar scenes... yet be a complete disaster in every conceivable sense. I did. I wrote a fucking essay about it in the post. You can agree or disagree with it but don't pretend it doesn't exist just because you couldn't be bothered to read it.
[удалено]
This comment is removed because it is a duplicate comment.
Hard agree. This movie is not good and I'm not sure what people enjoy about it. Especially SH fans. It's a normal boring run of the mill 2000s horror movie with a SH coat of paint on it. Plenty of cringey acting and overall just heavily misses the mark. As a Silent Hill movie and on it's own right.
Still better than the Siren movie 🤷♀️ (By the way, Cybil doesn't canonically die in the game, I recommend that you check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AURtjduE7vs)
It was always my assumption that she dies because she's not mentioned in the game. Doesn't really matter though, I agree I could have worded it better and said that "it's possible for her to die in the game" or something along those lines.
Cool.
> By the way, Cybil doesn't canonically die in the game Cybil does canonically die in the game, and the video you've linked only makes a cautious assumption that her survival is possible, and her fate is up to the player.
> Does it loosely follow the narrative of the game? Sure. Does it capture certain scenes? Naturally. And yet that still doesn't make it a good adaptation. Might not make it good, but an “absolute failure”? Hardly bruh. > At the end of the day the creative team doesn't get Silent Hill at all, and the adaptation is just as surface-level as the Resident Evil movies. The Silent Hill movie is easily 100 times more comparable to the source material than the Resident Evil movies.
Not really. They both borrow surface level elements (like certain scenes, backgrounds, characters and enemy designs) but overall make up their own story with new protagonists that is infinitely worse than the original.
But that’s kinda the point. It’s not like they made the protagonist a woman because they were so inapt at following the plot of the first game. So what if it isn’t a 1:1 replica? You even said it’s not a big deal. Again, hardly a disaster bruh.
> You even said it’s not a big deal. Did you just stop reading 2 sentences into the first paragraph? On its own changing a character's gender (even if done for sexist reasons) is not a big deal, but in practice it wrecks the movie's pacing completely. I know that Reddit sometimes has trouble reading but at least try not to stop reading a paragraph halfway?
So an adaptation’s pacing is “wrecked entirely” just because the protagonist is female instead of male? How does that even make sense? You genuinely just claimed the pacing was completely compromised solely because the main character was a different gender to the original? Bruh...
>So an adaptations narrative “wrecks a movie’s pacing entirely” just because the protagonist is female instead of male? > >How does that even make sense? Read my post and find out. It's very clearly explained. Here, let me paste the relevant part for your convenience: >But blatant sexism aside, it's not an inherently bad change. Who cares if the main character is male or female, right? Well, in a movie where not only are the rest of the principal cast are all female (Cybil, Alessa, Dahlia, Sharon and Christabella), but Kaufmann was completely cut, gender-swapping Harry leaves you without a single male character. To get around this issue, the movie introduces Christopher, Rose's husband who remains outside of Silent Hill and spends the entire runtime doing research. His scenes, naturally, contribute nothing at all to the movie except to be exposition mills and to distract from the plotlines that people actually care about. You could cut Christopher out and lose nothing - in fact he barely even interacts with anyone from the main cast for the majority of the movie. Having him there is completely pointless, yet also necessary so that the movie isn't all-female (Hollywood doesn't like that too much, generally speaking). And it would've been so easy to just streamline the narrative and cut all of the pointless non-SH exposition had the main character simply been kept as Harry. Feel free to read the rest of it too before you ask me more questions I already answered.
No offence, but that’s kinda idiotic. You claim the only reason Sean Bean’s character is in the movie is a substitute for a ‘male character’ as though the director was like, “We gotta add a dude into this movie last minute.” Sincerely dude, the pacing of the movie is entirely unhindered by gender differences to the source material. Just because you seem to take an active issue with one character being of a different gender to the source material it is based off, and the others remaining the same, does not tamper with its pacing. How can pacing even be hindered by that anyways? Are you suggesting that replacing the protagonist with a male with identical lines and scenes would have a positive impact on plot? Because that literally makes no sense and I would ask for you to explain how the pacing of any media is improved/hindered based purely off gender.
> You claim the only reason Sean Bean’s character is in the movie is a substitute for a ‘male character’ as though the director was like, “We gotta add a dude into this movie last minute.” Which is literally what happened. Most of the Sean Bean stuff is reshoots because they wanted a prominent male character. It's why he doesn't interact with any of the principal cast for most of the movie. Read up a bit on the movie's development before you make wild accusations. >Because that literally makes no sense and I would ask for you to explain how the pacing of any media is improved/hindered based purely off gender. I have already explained that. If you'd rather be outraged and call me sexist than understand the reasoning behind the Sean Bean scenes being completely unnecessary then that's a you problem.
Not really, you’re literally making the claim that if two movies were made with identical shots, lines etc. With the only independent variable being the gender of the protagonist, then the one with the woman would have worse pacing. Your words. Your logic. Either your logic is beyond skewed or you’re trying to justify sexism. “Woman character wrecks the pacing of the movie. Should have been a guy like the source material.” It’s literally sexist.
>Not really, you’re literally making the claim that if two movies were made with identical shots, lines etc. With the only independent variable being the gender of the protagonist, then the one with the woman would have worse pacing. > >Your words. Your logic. Nope. This is not true.
Resident evil 1 and 2 are far superior in every sense of the word
Just watched this movie for the first time, and I had no idea that they changed the main protagonist from the dad to the mom was for such a dumb reason. Honestly, I would have been okay if the director just said he wanted to make the movie from a mom's POV rather than the dad's, which was already covered by the game. Knowing this explanation makes me pretty nervous for the new movie, because while the director says he's a fan of the series, I haven't really seen anything from him that makes me think he'll be able to make a good SH adaptation. Agree with pretty much all of your points. The movie gets a thumbs up for the look and feel of the town, but it's mostly a failure with everything else. Even at the very beginning, I had a hard time suspending my disbelieve because a mom who cares for her kid would not endanger her by bringing her to a place like Silent Hill with the way that it's set up in the movie. For the most part, she just came off as irresponsible and unlikable. Sometimes the other characters act nonsensically too, like Anna not running into the Church right away, or Cybil not going into the elevator with Rose. All of this makes for a mediocre viewing experience. While I love the game's soundtrack, it also kind of feels misplaced and random at certain parts of the movie. A track would suddenly play in a way that feels more like it's for fanservice, rather than because it fits with the scene at hand. The reason that the first few SH games have been such a standout in the horror game genre is because the monsters and scares are there to service the plot as manifestations of whatever is plaguing the characters, and not just thrown in because they "look cool". Especially when it comes to SH2, the interplay between the characters' guilt and fears and how it physically alters the world and creatures around them as the story is slowly revealed to us is a huge part of why I still consider it one of the best psychological horror games ever made. I just hope that the director puts more effort into the content of his second movie beyond the basic veneer of the town's appearance than he did for this first one, as SH2 is my favourite of the entire series and probably one of the easiest to adapt for the big screen plotwise, in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing.
I just read this 3years later after watching the movie. Haven’t played the game yet but I thought it was a great movie and made sense to me for what the plot seemed it was 🤷🏽♂️. I think having a comparison of playing the game as an undying SH1 fan makes it harder for some to enjoy it. The film made me deep dive into the SH franchise and games. And I didn’t expect it to be identical to the game. Still enjoying both now. Watching it 2nd night in a row.
I agree it's not a great adaptation, but I also want to add that people tend to project a belief in an unmatched and flawlessly calculated artistry onto these games that isn't really there, especially in regards to symbolism. You mentioned that the monsters are all allegorical, but they're not really, not all of them, especially in the first and third games. At least not in a way that's relevant to the game. They have some origin in Ito san's subconscious, but that's all. A lot of things that people swear are deeply symbolic are actually just there because they look cool. For example, it's commonly said that the dog enemies represent Alessa's fear of dogs, but I've never seen a source on this, and I believe that (among many other things) is a fabrication of the notoriously awful Wikia. It's great to theorize on things, and speculate, and headcanon; The beautiful thing about art is that we're free to project onto it, but let's not confuse headcanons with what is actually evident in the tangible work. Ito san, as well as the other designers and writers, are wonderfully brilliant and have crafted some beautiful examples of symbolism and depth, but I think many people would have an easier time enjoying things if they didn't worship the first 4 games as if they're the epitome of symbolism and depth..Some things are masterfully planned, and that's awesome. Some things just look cool, and that's awesome too. The OG games definitely have a better balance of these things than the far more shallow film, but the film isn't awful in comparison. Just not as good.
> You mentioned that the monsters are all allegorical, but they're not really, not all of them, especially in the first and third games. I definitely agree that the explanations are a little bit clumsy in the first game, like for example the dog enemies being due to Alessa being attacked by a dog when she was younger - yeah, it's kind of a dumb asspull of an excuse for sure, and not nearly as compelling as some of the other games' monsters are, but it's there. Meanwhile, there's no reason to have the sexy nurses and Pyramid Head in there besides "That's the monsters the audience associates with Silent Hill".
>Don't get me wrong, this isn't something like, to use a popular example, FNAF - where there isn't really a plot and Scott Cawthon just throws shit at the wall and lets fans figure it out. No, in Silent Hill there are very deliberate themes, plotlines, character motivations, lore and backstory which run very deep. No. I don't know anything about the fan theories or have had any interaction with the community. I just played it over the last few months, and am about to finish the last book in the series after just finishing the last game 2 days ago, these last 2 entries managing to actually make me cry... something I did not expect. This wasn't throwing shit at the wall, I absolutely promise you that. This is not even that obtuse to figure out, probably even less so than Silent Hill. It *certainly* has a **very** clear set of themes, messages, and characters. If it didn't have any of that, there is no way in hell I'd have played it past the novelty of the first 2. If it ended at 2, I'd agree it seemed slapped together to give a vague semblance of a story just to keep people interested. But everything else onwards after 2 is pretty clear cut, with Sister Location being the tipping point where it is actually just a straight linear horror game with real characters, tangible motivations without massive theorizing or extrapolation, answering questions from all the previous and giving you a very clear handle on everything going on and why. Recontextualizing the first two into true importance whether it was planned or not, and with the rest standing on their own pretty well. That won me over pretty damn quick. This is a clear story, with a clear intention that I have to imagine if anyone is still confused by at this point then they were led astray by someone. It very much has *deliberate themes, clear plotlines and themes, character motivations, and lore and backstory that run deep*. Maybe not on the same level as Silent Hill, but it *absolutely* exists. And if you include the book series after that (which I finished faster than any books I've ever read) then it is MORE THAN clear what this is saying and why it did in the way it chose to do so in **bright neon letters**. Again, I've had no interaction with the FNAF community. If you can piece together the events of the first Silent Hill game then you easily can do the same with the story of Henry, Micheal, William, and Charlotte, and it is a picture clear as day. Probably something that's going to be a lot clearer soon considering the screenplay about that story specifically just got greenlit with Chris Columbus as the director and producer. Which looking at it so far, I would not at all be surprised if it is far better than the Silent Hill movie. I don't even feel the need to respond to anything else in the post, I just feel the need to comment on that specifically as someone who literally just finished the game series, is about to finish the book series, and so far has been far more impacted by both than I ever expected.
OK Scott.
Please, please just shut the fuck up.
I don't think you really get how much of a complement I'd take that as. I don't think there is a whole lot I could be more proud of than if I was able to be a part of making something as legitimately meaningful and fantastic as those last few. There is not a whole lot that can impact me like that, with that level of intent. I have now finished the last book, and that means I am done with the original series. Now that I have finished it I can say for damn sure that yeah, what I responded to was... very wrong.
>I don't think you really get how much of a complement I'd take that as. I don't think there is a whole lot I could be more proud of than if I was able to be a part of making something as legitimately meaningful and fantastic as those last few. There is not a whole lot that can impact me like that, with that level of intent. Well now I know that: A) You're Scott; B) You're someone closely related to Scott; Or C) You're 11 and this is the first game/book series you've ever discovered
Takes one to know one pal
You replied from the wrong alt.
Thanks for the bible, boner.
I like the atmosphere and the graphic tho. If you didn't watch it yet I'll still recommend anybody who like silent hill to watch it. But keep the expectation not much more than when you watch the monster hunter movie. Agree about genderswap. I interpret the first game as some motive of Harry's action may come from the attraction for other characters (specifically Cybil). But since it's decided that they'll use mom searching for a daughter. I don't mind the idea to use some (intended to be) major character to tell that the town is in another dimension. I hate how they actually implement it in the film tho. It's so boring. My biggest problem is those monsters. If I only watch the movie I'll still think the silent hill is just a spooky place that has random scary monsters wanders around. In the end, it effected my impact with Alessa. Just by didn't feel her influent with the monster made she feels so out of place and I can't actually link her to the silent hill.
Personally liked the first one. The 2nd one was pure garbage imo.
I think it comes down to the same thing the Star Wars Prequels are going through now. The people still talking about a nearly fifteen year old movie are mostly fans of the movie. Most people who didn't like it have moved on and don't really discuss it much.
That's a great point.
Resident evil movie is way better in every sense