Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 24 May 2017




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
Poll ended at 11 May 2012
Yes. 50%  50%  [ 11 ]
No. 36%  36%  [ 8 ]
I don't know. 14%  14%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 22
Author Message

Moderator
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Apr 2004
Notes left: 11052
Last seen at: In the anals of forum history
You haven't proven anything. :\

I gave you your due credit, stop making me regret it.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Moderator
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 09 Aug 2007
Notes left: 3624
Last seen at: Federative Republic of Butts
Unlocking again under the condition you all behave.

Anyone caught being less than civil WILL receive a formal warning. If anyone sees this kind of behavior, report the message and a member of staff will deal with them. Do not step in yourself, you will only risk a warning in return.

_________________
Image
THE RULES! [click me and learn]
"I think I'd prefer a sword over a penis anyday." - Wigeke
Mxpn - Restless Night (bandcamp)


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 24 Nov 2011
Notes left: 398
There's already been enough points made as to why Bogeyman can be considered PH. Whether choose to accept what's provided is a personal problem.

But there is one more possible theory for those who support Bogeyman being a separate monster I'd like to add in light of finishing Downpour.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
You could say the Bogeyman monster has the ability to be manifested by anybody. It doesn't have one overall canon appearance. It can take on the appearance of any kind of monster depending upon what's truly in the protagonist's heart. Of course that would beg the question why PH would be triggered as his personal Bogeyman. But it's one more theory to bear in mind.


Top
   
 

Brookhaven Receptionist
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Nov 2010
Notes left: 981
Last seen at: Kentucky
^ That's how I now see the Bogeyman.

_________________
"Dawn comes and we part ways again."
"I'm hanging like a bat today; crucified by design."


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 16 Feb 2010
Notes left: 69
I don't really think it should be. Why would Silent Hill manifest 2 seperate monsters that look almost exactly the same and serve the same purpose? I always just sort of figured it was because the game is based on a very similar model to Silent Hill 2, and so Pyramid Head was another manifestation of guil, though it is very possible that is is used as a vehicle for punishment against those who didn't hold up the bargin in Shepherd's Glen, versus to be used to punish soley James.

_________________
"Once More the Sith Shall Rule the Galaxy!"- Palpatine
"Welcome to My Nightmare!"- Freddy Krueger


Top
   
 

Brookhaven Receptionist
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Nov 2010
Notes left: 981
Last seen at: Kentucky
Of course Bogeyman in Homecoming was an altered version of PH for fan-service.
But due to SH's vague nature, we the fans can connect obscure dots & lines and draw these conclusions. It's fun.
We all can be right until 100% definitive evidence is provided that supports a specific view. Imo It's part of being a more hardcore SH fan.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The Bogeyman from Downpour could be the same entity from the stories in SH-Homecoming that the parents told their children. To me, it is.

_________________
"Dawn comes and we part ways again."
"I'm hanging like a bat today; crucified by design."


Top
   
 

Moderator
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 09 Aug 2007
Notes left: 3624
Last seen at: Federative Republic of Butts
Just a friendly reminder. Any Downpour unmarked spoilers will result in a formal warning in the first a offense, 2nd offense is a ban. No exceptions.

_________________
Image
THE RULES! [click me and learn]
"I think I'd prefer a sword over a penis anyday." - Wigeke
Mxpn - Restless Night (bandcamp)


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 24 Nov 2011
Notes left: 398
Sith_Dreamer wrote:
I don't really think it should be. Why would Silent Hill manifest 2 seperate monsters that look almost exactly the same and serve the same purpose? I always just sort of figured it was because the game is based on a very similar model to Silent Hill 2, and so Pyramid Head was another manifestation of guil, though it is very possible that is is used as a vehicle for punishment against those who didn't hold up the bargin in Shepherd's Glen, versus to be used to punish soley James.

But SH1-3 has no problems reusing nurses. SH1, 3, & 4 also reuses dogs as monsters. I never understood why people never complained about that yet they complain about Pyramid Head showing up in another game outside SH2 despite the fact nothing in any of the games, Lost Memories, or elsewhere states beyond a shadow of a doubt that PH cannot be manifested by any other person except James.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11370
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
The nurses and dogs usually aren't protrayed as unique or significant, can have different symbolism or are an archetypal, common aspect, or are very easy to visualize because we all have frames of reference for nurses and dogs. It's not quite the same thing as imagining a triangle man who exists to punish you.

_________________
BlackFire2 wrote:
I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 09 Jun 2012
Notes left: 23
This was said by Jason Allen (lead designer of homecoming) (BEFORE THE GAME'S RELEASE), The bogeyman represents a myth parents created to keep the children out of trouble, that is part of the town's folklore, (shepherd's glen) and can be futher investigated by reading the drawings found in the game, while he is also an accretion of the event's occurring in both towns during the game.


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Nov 2011
Notes left: 142
rollerfan222 wrote:
This was said by Jason Allen (lead designer of homecoming) (BEFORE THE GAME'S RELEASE), The bogeyman represents a myth parents created to keep the children out of trouble, that is part of the town's folklore, (shepherd's glen) and can be futher investigated by reading the drawings found in the game, while he is also an accretion of the event's occurring in both towns during the game.


yeah, but he looks exactly like Pyramid Head, even though every character should have his/her own monsters. It would have been A GINORMOUS coincidence that james's idea of an executioner is exactly like the boogeyman. There's no way to explain this. Homecoming is a broken game

_________________
Have you seen a little girl? Short, black hair. Seven years old...


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1623
CandyLander wrote:
rollerfan222 wrote:
This was said by Jason Allen (lead designer of homecoming) (BEFORE THE GAME'S RELEASE), The bogeyman represents a myth parents created to keep the children out of trouble, that is part of the town's folklore, (shepherd's glen) and can be futher investigated by reading the drawings found in the game, while he is also an accretion of the event's occurring in both towns during the game.


yeah, but he looks exactly like Pyramid Head, even though every character should have his/her own monsters. It would have been A GINORMOUS coincidence that james's idea of an executioner is exactly like the boogeyman. There's no way to explain this. Homecoming is a broken game

The founding families were originally part of the cult from Silent Hill, but split off so they could worship their God in their own way. With that in mind, doesn't it make sense that the founding families would keep some of the same things from The Order, such as the executioners? Even then, it makes sense that they would slightly change what they have kept. So, then it makes sense that they would use the image of the executioners for the boogeyman, thus explaining why he looks similar to Pyramid Head. Yeah, the Boogeyman's looks are based on the movie PH, but there is an in-game/story explanation for why he looks similar to SH2's PH.


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Nov 2011
Notes left: 142
Soulless-Shadow wrote:
CandyLander wrote:
rollerfan222 wrote:
This was said by Jason Allen (lead designer of homecoming) (BEFORE THE GAME'S RELEASE), The bogeyman represents a myth parents created to keep the children out of trouble, that is part of the town's folklore, (shepherd's glen) and can be futher investigated by reading the drawings found in the game, while he is also an accretion of the event's occurring in both towns during the game.


yeah, but he looks exactly like Pyramid Head, even though every character should have his/her own monsters. It would have been A GINORMOUS coincidence that james's idea of an executioner is exactly like the boogeyman. There's no way to explain this. Homecoming is a broken game

The founding families were originally part of the cult from Silent Hill, but split off so they could worship their God in their own way. With that in mind, doesn't it make sense that the founding families would keep some of the same things from The Order, such as the executioners? Even then, it makes sense that they would slightly change what they have kept. So, then it makes sense that they would use the image of the executioners for the boogeyman, thus explaining why he looks similar to Pyramid Head. Yeah, the Boogeyman's looks are based on the movie PH, but there is an in-game/story explanation for why he looks similar to SH2's PH.


But james has nothing to do with that. He has nothing with the cult and is not involved. James never saw an order's executioner, he made up the image of the pyramid head. james only saw a memo that said the "red devil" and that triangle head shaped guy came to his mind. The red devil that Walter talked about in the memo could be completely different. As far as I know, the red devil could be an evil unicorn that pukes fire and craps rainbows that was used to kill people by the order.

_________________
Have you seen a little girl? Short, black hair. Seven years old...


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 Feb 2009
Notes left: 7898
Last seen at: Nowhere
Quote:
James never saw an order's executioner, he made up the image of the pyramid head. james only saw a memo that said the "red devil" and that triangle head shaped guy came to his mind.

It is said that when Mary was alive James went to the Historical Society and saw the Executioner's painting. That image stood in his mind, unconscious, until the day his Hell began.

Quote:
As far as I know, the red devil could be an evil unicorn that pukes fire and craps rainbows that was used to kill people by the order.

Red Devil is actually a man named Jimmy Stone. He was the leader of the Valtiel sect, the one that made Walter insane.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1623
CandyLander wrote:
But james has nothing to do with that. He has nothing with the cult and is not involved. James never saw an order's executioner, he made up the image of the pyramid head. james only saw a memo that said the "red devil" and that triangle head shaped guy came to his mind. The red devil that Walter talked about in the memo could be completely different. As far as I know, the red devil could be an evil unicorn that pukes fire and craps rainbows that was used to kill people by the order.

Like Mephisto said; when James and Mary went to Silent Hill he could have seen photos of the old executioners at the Silent Hill Historical Society which stuck in his mind (really, who would forget such a thing? local executioners from times past aren't exactly something one would forget about a tourist town). It makes sense that tourists would go to a town's museum to learn a bit about the area they are visiting. So SH2's PH = the Order's executioner, just like Homecoming's Boogeyman = the Order's executioner.


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Nov 2011
Notes left: 142
^ got it :D. so, answering the poll, technically, is it the same creature? It's not because it's the memory of two differen't persons, but by the other side, the memory is the same (sorry if this looks confusing).

And I still keep my opinion that monsters aren't reusable, every character has his/her monsters

_________________
Have you seen a little girl? Short, black hair. Seven years old...


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1623
CandyLander wrote:
^ got it :D. so, answering the poll, technically, is it the same creature?

Depends on who you talk to and what you think. Personally, I think they're different, even if they share the same source of inspiration. One is created by this guy because of this reason, the other is created by these people because of that reason. In my opinion, the reasons and people are different enough to make PH and Boogeyman two separate monsters, even if they look very similar.

CandyLander wrote:
And I still keep my opinion that monsters aren't reusable, every character has his/her monsters

Again, this depends on who you ask and what you think. Personally, I think that people can have similar monsters if they have similar reasons to have them. Many people fear hospitals, so it would make sense that some variation of the nurses would appear again. The same could be said for the dogs. Even then, I also think that the otherworld is like a sponge in that it soaks up things from each person who enters the otherworld, and just like a sponge it can keep some remnants of the previous contaminant. For an actual sponge, that would be stains and smells, but for the otherworld that could be monsters, locations, fears, and even decor. Of course, that doesn't mean I like things being reused over and over again. I think that whatever the otherworld keeps and reuses can change and be influenced not only by the current individual/s, but by whatever remains from previous individuals. For example, someone with a fear of dogs could encounter monster dogs that incorporate the long creepy tongue thing from the SH4 dogs, while also having the split head of the SH3 dogs, and then something entirely new from the current person. Hell, perhaps even different monsters could be combined; for example, monster nurses with dog heads because they were mauled by a dog then had to get reconstructive surgery, or something. Two separate fears, but combined because ultimately they steam from the same source. Of course, I could just be talking out my arse. That would explain the smell... ;)


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 30 Jan 2011
Notes left: 84
I have never understood why people thinks Pyramid Head is so unique when in the very first game he appears, Silent Hill 2, there are TWO Pyramid Heads, showing that can be more than one, actually an army if you want. So Pyramid Head isn't an individual, it is a type of monster in the first place.
Regardless of that I think that the PHs of SH2 are different from The Boogeyman of Homecoming, because like several people have adressed the first ones were created by James becasue of his guilt, and the other is the embodiment of an old tale.

And to Candy Laner who says that it is imposible that can exists two type of creatures that look similar being different, it isn't imposible, because like have been said by various posters, both creatures are based in the same source, real historical executioners of Silent Hill.
Aside of all the discussion about the paintings, (of which is interesting that in the arcade game the painting is different form SH2), Pyramid Head appareance being based on the past executioners is fact, because it is written in translated memories, and that the boogeyman of Shepherd's Glen is based on the same executioners in possible, because the Shepherd's Glen habitants used to be part of the Order, and shared their myths and folklore.
So it is totally posible for they to be similar but different.

Maybe the developers wanted to recreate the "same" Pyramid Head from SH2, and I wonder which one of them, since there were two even there.

About James having seen the picture of the executioners (because it is a picture, not a photo, I suppose it is from when there were no cameras around), I have ever thought that James did see the photos, and that that image in his subconscious was wht the city used to create the PHs. I don't know where I read this, maybe someone remember where it is said exactly?

I also think that many people can share the same fears and emotions, and that would spawn similar monsters in the city.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 Sep 2012
Notes left: 160
That's something I have thought for a longtime as well. I know a lot of people consider PH to be a sacred monster, but I think it's an interesting twist that he's not exclusively James monster, because, like you said, PH is inspired by the ancient executionners.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: