Silent Hill Heaven

I read in another thread about how each person apparently has a God and a Devil in all of them, yaddy yadda, from that interview.

It still doesn't explain why she says 'right now.' Maybe she's meaning that usually she is a whole being, rather than a split part of Alessa? Hm. Maybe Rose still left with only the Dark part of Alessa, and only that part of Alessa has the power to cause paranormal things to happen because the dark part of Alessa's desire for control and power has enabled this? This would explain why Sharon, and Alessa before the burning, do not appear to have powers because Sharon does not have any strong desires, and Alessa, awoken these powers through her thirst for control, which spawned the splitting of her soul into a good and evil side. Just throwing stuff out there, again...probably very outlandish.

It's possible. From what I've gleaned from the movie--and admittedly I might be bringing in bits from the game--Dark Alessa is just all the bad parts of Alessa herself, all her rage and hatred. Perhaps that "right now I am Dark Alessa" means "usually I am just Alessa" or something.

^Yeah, I never really thought about that until you mentioned the interview.

Another thing is that, to the cult, Dark Alessa is basically "The Dark One", the Devil, yadda yadda. She's playing the role and revelling in what they think she is so she can get revenge and destroy them and all that. It's a character she's played for her cat-and-mouse game.

But "Your reward is the truth" + "Right now, I am the Dark Part of Alessa," Meaning she's showing her true nature to Rose only. Trusting her. And after they make their pact...

"I am the Reaper," fusing with Rose so she can become the one who puts an end to all of this.

Yeah, but not only that, apparently she is the 'Devil' part of Alessa, atleast this is what I'm getting from the interview Yuki posted above, and Sharon is the 'God' like side.

Which basically mean "Good and Evil".

Right.

I got to the tenth page and realised I had another 45 pages to go, so I'm just going to put my opinion out there.:
The problem with the ending is that it IS so open. However, I don't believe that anyone died at the beginning, when Rose crashed, or Cybil crashed. If they did die, Cybil quite obviously being burned to death, but I don't think Rose died when Christabella stabbed her, either. I've seen someone (not here) suggest that they died when Alessa climbed the ladder up to Rose and Sharon, when Rose keeps telling Sharon to keep her eyes closed. The first few times I watched it, it seemed to be more likely that Alessa, having now turned Sharon into her host so that she may now wreak revenge on the rest of the world, would have killed Rose then. However, I've read many theories here, and personally I prefer that Rose and Sharon are just trapped in the dimension, that even out of Silent Hill, they are alone.
I don't know much about the second film that's coming out soon, I should probably look into that, though.

After seeing the official trailer last week, I began to wonder about Sharon/Alessa's fate at the end of the movie. I saw an apparent screenshot from the new movie where Heather comes across Rose at some point. She looks exactly the same as she did at the end of the first film.

So, the question therefore is Rose trapped in the Fog world and Alessa/Sharon/Heather(?) is not? And how does this explain the scenes with Dark Alessa in the new film?

Here's the screenshot in question: http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... osesh2.jpg

Also, apologies if some of the questions I've posed here have been discussed in other threads or pages of this thread. Haven't been here in a while so I'm way out of the loop.

EDIT: Nevermind the bit about "the scenes with Dark Alessa," seems likely that's all part of a dream anyway.

We have no idea. The questions of how one movie leads into the other is one of the things that excites me most about Revelations.

I think the ending of the first film, thinking ONLY of the first film, is a great mystery, and one that can be interpreted many different ways. I had my own interpretation of it until Revelation's story started coming out, and I think they took a different route for the sequel. I think Christophe Gans had his own plans for the ending of the first film, and how it would tie into a sequel, but I guess we'll never know what those plans were.

Looking at how Revelation is going to pan out, here is my guess to how the first film's ending ties in with Revelation. At the end of Silent Hill, when Dark Alessa looks Sharon in the face and she blacks out, I think that Dark Alessa replaced Sharon in the Otherworld. So at the end, the little girl Rose is still in the Otherworld with isn't really Sharon, but Dark Alessa in disguise. Sharon was returned to the Real World, while Rose remains trapped in it.

This is why in SH: R Rose is still in the Otherworld, Sharon is in the Real One, and Dark Alessa is still existing in Silent Hill.

Gans (the first film's director) stated that the girl Rose goes home with is the complete Alessa, and Bassett said on his blog that he was not going to retcon Gans's interpretation of the film.

JKristine35 wrote:Gans (the first film's director) stated that the girl Rose goes home with is the complete Alessa, and Bassett said on his blog that he was not going to retcon Gans's interpretation of the film.

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, where does he state this?

Gans talked about Alessa and Sharon fusing on the French blu-ray commentary. You can find the direct quote in my FAQ.

The Demon wrote:I think the ending of the first film, thinking ONLY of the first film, is a great mystery, and one that can be interpreted many different ways. I had my own interpretation of it until Revelation's story started coming out,

.

That's how it should be. YOUR interpretation doesn't have to be what the producers thought they made.

tbonesays wrote:

The Demon wrote:I think the ending of the first film, thinking ONLY of the first film, is a great mystery, and one that can be interpreted many different ways. I had my own interpretation of it until Revelation's story started coming out,

.

That's how it should be. YOUR interpretation doesn't have to be what the producers thought they made.

And then Bassett came along and fucked the whole thing up with Revelation. :/

Droo wrote:

tbonesays wrote:

The Demon wrote:I think the ending of the first film, thinking ONLY of the first film, is a great mystery, and one that can be interpreted many different ways. I had my own interpretation of it until Revelation's story started coming out,

.

That's how it should be. YOUR interpretation doesn't have to be what the producers thought they made.

And then Bassett came along and fucked the whole thing up with Revelation. :/

That's is a good example. We'd want to interpret the chaos that is SH Revelation on what the movie showed us. If, hypothetically, Basset does some interviews and says that he meant to do some things that didn't appear in the movies, we wouldn't really care.

Droo wrote:

tbonesays wrote:

The Demon wrote:I think the ending of the first film, thinking ONLY of the first film, is a great mystery, and one that can be interpreted many different ways. I had my own interpretation of it until Revelation's story started coming out,

.

That's how it should be. YOUR interpretation doesn't have to be what the producers thought they made.

And then Bassett came along and fucked the whole thing up with Revelation. :/

You can always keep your interpretation and ignore Revelation.

^ True, but it isn't that easy and simple, is it? I mean, we can, but since Revelation is (supposedly) "canon", we now need to deal with its shitty ass retcon-everything writing.

teosoleil wrote:^ True, but it isn't that easy and simple, is it? I mean, we can, but since Revelation is (supposedly) "canon", we now need to deal with its shitty ass retcon-everything writing.

There are plenty of people who are more than happy to ignore canon in favour of their own interpretation, simply by saying "I know this is what happened, but I prefer analyzing it like that."