Yahoo Games "worst videogame movies" Silent Hill

[JKristine35]

Well, that's correct, but in the game after Harry sees Cheryl you can at your own convenience choose to embrace the atmosphere just by walking or standing still, since you're pretty much your own director. But in the movie there's a certain attitude... something has to happen every minute, or the audience will be bored. The way Rose' initial encounter with the town is handled is imperative due to atmosphere and build up; I believe the filmmakers should have stressed the effective "less is more"-approach of silence, a slow pace and extended shots, focusing on one character only for like four, five minutes, and then the silhouette of her daughter could surface, leading Rose to that dark alley.

What you're suggesting simply will not work in a movie. People who aren't fans of the games bitch and moan all over the place that Silent Hill was too slow and too boring, because of the scenes showing her exploring the town. Movie audiences are different from game audiences. As it is, they pushed the boundaries by having as much time of Rose walking around as they did.

[Csilent Ihill]

The treatment of the gore is entirely different between the two, as is the atmosphere surrounding it. Christophe presents the violence in his film in an entirely different fashion than the game, and it's less disturbing to me because in the game, its faint glimpses of far off bodies, with the occasional "crime scene" here and there. It's more effective because you simultaneously wonder (and don't want to wonder) what could be out in that dark.

I second that. Gans' initiative in bringing these gore sequences are misplaced and uncalled for; it's not effective nor scary and it doesn't really serve the movie. It's feels like it's just for shock value and to please the crowd who look up to those gore factors. Surely the game is gory at times having dead bodies taking place occasionally, but the way the game is presenting these scenes are ambigiuous, eerie and bizarre enough with a unique disturbing and intriguing style; the scenes involve unsettling imagination, and events that remain more or less unclear and cryptic basically create anxiety and fear (unlike the movie that totally lacks dread, isolation, a sense of danger and gripping drama). Speaking of gore, I'm not sure that the movie's original ending involving six Pyramid Heads in the church would have pulled it off any better, but perhaps the purpose of PH's role would have been less meaningless and at least vaguely explained.

What you're suggesting simply will not work in a movie. People who aren't fans of the games bitch and moan all over the place that Silent Hill was too slow and too boring, because of the scenes showing her exploring the town. Movie audiences are different from game audiences. As it is, they pushed the boundaries by having as much time of Rose walking around as they did.

I don't think people particularly disliked the slow pace at the beginning when Rose first encounters SH since there was a sense of build up and atmosphere, however, I do believe people (including me) moaned about scenes like the drawn out Hotel-sequence that just felt too pointless and idiotic. It's true a lot of people can't stand certain scenes revolving a single character where nothing seemingly happens and there's just atmosphere, but even if SH had such scenes I think it failed simply because the movie itself isn't intriguing, and it's hard keeping interest dealing with dull characters, foolish dialogue and a confusing plot with sluggish narrative. Now, if the movie was an intriguing one, featuring well-written characters, dialogue and plot, and it occasionally had slow paced scenes with just one character and all atmosphere, people would probably have a different take on it.

[JKristine35]

You're making the assumption that every single person who complained about her walking around in the fog also dislikes the characters and dialogue. Having trolled IMDb since before the movie's release, I've seen many, many instances where people said they felt the beginning was boring and didn't pick up until after she was arrested by Cybil. Basically, the people I'm talking about weren't saying the whole movie was boring- just the wandering in the fog parts. The mentality of many movie-goers is simply that stuff like that is boring and they want action or at least some kind of dialogue immediately. You're also forgetting that movies have about 1/6 the running time of a video game- if she were to spend just a total of 30 minutes lost in the fog, that's 1/4 of the whole movie right there.

[emFox]

You're making the assumption that every single person who complained about her walking around in the fog also dislikes the characters and dialogue. Having trolled IMDb since before the movie's release, I've seen many, many instances where people said they felt the beginning was boring and didn't pick up until after she was arrested by Cybil. Basically, the people I'm talking about weren't saying the whole movie was boring- just the wandering in the fog parts. The mentality of many movie-goers is simply that stuff like that is boring and they want action or at least some kind of dialogue immediately. You're also forgetting that movies have about 1/6 the running time of a video game- if she were to spend just a total of 30 minutes lost in the fog, that's 1/4 of the whole movie right there.

And this is why "Silent Hill" shouldn't be treated as a big studio picture. I'd rather take a low-budget film made by a talented director who can create the same kind of atmosphere and surrealism present in the games so that the studios won't feel as much of a need to dictate the film's content to satisfy the average joe.

Instead of a fifty million dollar budget that shows off the CGI Otherworld transitions -- which aren't frightening, though are good to look at -- how about something closer to 25 million or less, with a more subdued, "passive-aggressive" style that captures the feeling of an omniscient consciousness that watches the protagonist's every move.

[AuraTwilight]

Not at all. The treatment of the gore is entirely different between the two, as is the atmosphere surrounding it. Christophe presents the violence in his film in an entirely different fashion than the game, and it's less disturbing to me because in the game, its faint glimpses of far off bodies, with the occasional "crime scene" here and there. It's more effective because you simultaneously wonder (and don't want to wonder) what could be out in that dark.

It would be a double standard if both instances of gore were treated the same by their respective creators. They are not.

Then criticize THAT, and not "The gore is childish and excessive."

And this is why "Silent Hill" shouldn't be treated as a big studio picture. I'd rather take a low-budget film made by a talented director who can create the same kind of atmosphere and surrealism present in the games so that the studios won't feel as much of a need to dictate the film's content to satisfy the average joe.

Yea, never gonna happen with a video franchise. Konami wants to make money, and the kind of thing you're asking for would be expensive and unpopular. No dice.

And people would STILL bitch. Probably the same people who complain now in general.

[emFox]

Then criticize THAT, and not "The gore is childish and excessive."

Criticize what? You're confusing me here.

Yea, never gonna happen with a video franchise. Konami wants to make money, and the kind of thing you're asking for would be expensive and unpopular. No dice.

And people would STILL bitch. Probably the same people who complain now in general.

Expensive? The original movie was budgeted at 50 million dollars and made a profit. The name alone would probably bring back a lot of people that went to watch it considering that it made a profit at both the theater and on DVD sales. Bringing that budget down by half would probably be the first thing a studio wants anyway: bring it down even more, with a more daring crew on board willing to make a movie they feel has integrity, would allow them the freedom to do as they please. Instead, we get Don Carmody talking about making the sequel more accessible, which is frightening to me when you consider his career as producer, which has steadily churned out quite a few bad movies. The guy doesn't care about artistic integrity.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0138502/

I don't understand why you're concerned with profit, or how the average audience will perceive the movie. Those aren't good measures of quality.

[AuraTwilight]

I don't understand why you're concerned with profit, or how the average audience will perceive the movie. Those aren't good measures of quality.

*facepalm*

Okay, nevermind, you're entirely not following what I'm trying to say here.

[emFox]

I don't understand why you're concerned with profit, or how the average audience will perceive the movie. Those aren't good measures of quality.

*facepalm*

Okay, nevermind, you're entirely not following what I'm trying to say here.

Yea, never gonna happen with a video franchise. Konami wants to make money, and the kind of thing you're asking for would be expensive and unpopular. No dice.

And people would STILL bitch. Probably the same people who complain now in general.

I see you're trying to be a realist. I'm not suggesting a full blown arthouse movie. I'm suggesting a GOOD adaptation, not made on a shoestring budget, so that the studio doesn't feel as strong an urge to poke their nose into the project. They're not paying as much for it, so they generally won't be quite as controlling.

The original movie was budgeted at 50 million dollars, again. That's a lot of money no matter which way you cut it, and the studios wanted to make a good investment. It's why the trailers and advertisements were so generic -- to attract audiences. It's why they insisted that Chris and Officer Gucci to be inserted into the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot more in the movie that was by request. And in the end, they got a weird, gory horror movie that would sit well with audiences that enjoy gory horror movies.

Bring that down significantly -- probably even lower than 20 million -- and the studio won't be as concerned about content, since they're paying less for the budget. More lax studio standards equals more creative freedom (goodbye pointless exposition with Sean Bean). The name alone would attract fans to the theaters and make a decent profit, with the possibility of other filmgoers to follow that enjoyed the original movie enough to make the title $97,607,453 at the box office. Combine that with DVD sales, and you've made a neat profit.

I'd love to see "Silent Hill 2" the game adapted to screen. It wouldn't require a high CG effects budget. The environments from the game look more like dilapidated buildings than rusty hell. A good director, combined with a talented crew, would be able to shoot a movie with this kind of setting on a lower budget since it doesn't demand a CG Otherworld change, or even an elaborate Otherworld at all: just wear everything down, strip the room of its features and add some grating here and there. The only challenge would involve things like some of the mind-bending construction in the prison and labyrinth.

I mean, if a movie like "Moon" can look spectacular on a five million dollar budget and gross approximately seven million dollars, "Silent Hill 2" could possibly do the same. It just needs the right crew.

[Csilent Ihill]

You're making the assumption that every single person who complained about her walking around in the fog also dislikes the characters and dialogue. Having trolled IMDb since before the movie's release, I've seen many, many instances where people said they felt the beginning was boring and didn't pick up until after she was arrested by Cybil. Basically, the people I'm talking about weren't saying the whole movie was boring- just the wandering in the fog parts. The mentality of many movie-goers is simply that stuff like that is boring and they want action or at least some kind of dialogue immediately. You're also forgetting that movies have about 1/6 the running time of a video game- if she were to spend just a total of 30 minutes lost in the fog, that's 1/4 of the whole movie right there.

Of course I'm making an assumption here, otherwise I can't justify my opinion, which I by the way know is at least somewhat accurate... True, the majority of the average movie-goers want safe "fast food"-movies containing fast paced action and standard scripts, they don't appreciate nor understand the significance of "different" films, so as clever as I am all I can think of is "it is what it is"... One of the major problems with the SH movie is the element of too much content and weak story structure, like too many characters, unnecessary scenes and poorly executed narrative, because the plot is all over the place, making it difficult to keep the movie focused and compact. Basically, they took more than they could manage and it felt like the movie wanted to bring so much but at the end of the day it brought very little, like the disappointing SPIDER-MAN 3.

Now, if they'd cut the movie down and ruled out several aspects of the content, and instead had given their primary attention to a more sparing, more focused and more easily handled "less is more"-sort of plot revolving just a few emotived characters, while paying detail in creating an actual sense of dread and disturbing atmosphere, as well as having preconcieved meanings of knowing the studio wouldn't approve an entire female cast *sigh*, the condition of succeeding in creating a successful adaptation would have been more likely. Instead Gans' (in)deliberately created a dull fantasy flick with confounded confidence followed by awkward results.

Maybe Gans and Avary are a bad combination despite their friendship. Having Avary alone working with the follow up might change the prospects. But then there is Don Carmody wanting to make the sequel even more accessible...

[DistantJ]

Once again we are completely failing to acknowledge that people have different tastes. Stop trying to change each other's minds! Especially the naysayers, how would you like if it I tried to point out all the flaws in something you really liked to try and ruin it for you?

[Video Gamer]

Well, if it turned out the flaws were genuine flaws and not just nit-picks, I'd probably re-evaluate my opinion. I'd probably still enjoy whatever it was, but I wouldn't go round praising it as the BEST THING EVAR.

[DamienPales]

I have a feeling that everyone who is convinced this movie has merit is suffering from this.

[AuraTwilight]

Jesus Christ, the thread was just starting to calm down. Do you enjoy being an ass?

[Kairu]

I have a feeling that everyone who is convinced this movie has merit is suffering from this.

What about the people who becames fans because of the movie, otherwise I think your half right, I had that until I saw the film a second time.

[DamienPales]

Until you saw the film a second time? And then you suddenly liked the movie?

Sorry to break it to you, but that's still cognitive dissonance. Only difference is you've decided that the grapes are sour.

[JKristine35]

I thought trolling was against board rules?

[DamienPales]

Yeah, but you'd have to prove that I'm on this board specifically to target members of this forum to piss off. A snarky comment here and there does not a troll make.

It's also not my fault that you take everything I say as some sort of personal attack on your humanity.

[JKristine35]

At this point, you are only on this thread to piss people off and be a ridiculous asshole. That's what trolls do, therefore, in this thread at least, you're trolling.

[DamienPales]

Well...I'm not the one calling people ridiculous assholes...

I'm extremely offended and I demand an apology!

[JKristine35]

You know what Damien? Grow the fuck up and learn some goddamned manners.