Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 14 Dec 2017




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

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

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

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
Because frankly, no offense, I really think it is stupid.


And you say you're not being hostile.

Quote:
You mean "its", and no, we really can't.
Silent Hill's supernatural side is extremely unpredictable.
For the most part, Silent Hill does whatever the heck it wants and doesn't like abiding to rules.


1) English isn't my first language, quit being a Grammar Nazi.

2) We can predict Silent Hill's power in several ways; it has rules, as established by Translated Memories. It manifests the minds of people with strong emotions, good or bed; it calls out to people with darkness in their hearts; it can allow one to meet or speak with the dead.

Quote:
I'm proposing it's either an unreliable painting or an easter egg to SH2.
The painting was never actually supposed to be this noticeable, but when I captured it via emulator for the site, I increased the contrast dramatically making it extremely noticeable. This is how noticeable it's actually supposed to be in-game:

http://i39.tinypic.com/rwosrc.png

Combine that with the PSP's original small resolution and wham: all you get is an vague outline. Origins' developers intended it to be very obscured painting.


The house is also BURNING and full of smoke. The painting exists. It's right there in the game, and any jackass can tell it's there without having to emulate or camerahack the game. If you're just going to write it off as an easter egg or reference with no in-universe existence, then why the hell did you bring it up in the first place?

_________________
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: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
AuraTwilight wrote:
And you say you're not being hostile.


I'm not being hostile, I just think your point is well, in your own words "stupid."
You think everything I say is hostile, but I think you're just being too paranoid.
I'm not trying to throw a wrench at you or anything, but provide some examples.

AuraTwilight wrote:
1) English isn't my first language, quit being a Grammar Nazi.


Aight. Just wondering, out of curiosity, what is your first language?

AuraTwilight wrote:
We can predict Silent Hill's power in several ways; it has rules, as established by Translated Memories. It manifests the minds of people with strong emotions, good or bed; it calls out to people with darkness in their hearts; it can allow one to meet or speak with the dead.


And it can also manifest paintings, monsters, letters and beautiful women.

AuraTwilight wrote:
If you're just going to write it off as an easter egg or reference with no in-universe existence, then why the hell did you bring it up in the first place?


Because everyone else keeps bringing up the topic of paintings.
And not everyone notices the painting on their first playthrough of the game.


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
I'm not being hostile, I just think your point is well, in your own words "stupid."
You think everything I say is hostile, but I think you're just being too paranoid.
I'm not trying to throw a wrench at you or anything, but provide some examples.


Do you not understand what the problem is? You're calling people's ideas stupid and the people themselves ignorant, and, well...

Quote:
Maybe you're just looking at my Alex Shepherd avatar and vision me talking in a rough, gruff interrogative voice. Maybe I don't need to tone down, maybe you just need to grow a bit of a spine.


Maybe you're not doing it on purpose, but you're seriously being an asshole to everyone disagreeing with you in this thread.

Quote:
Aight. Just wondering, out of curiosity, what is your first language?


Quote:
And it can also manifest paintings, monsters, letters and beautiful women.


All of which come from the minds of people experiencing them. Travis has nothing to do with Pyramid Head, so why would the painting exist for him?

Quote:
Because everyone else keeps bringing up the topic of paintings.
And not everyone notices the painting on their first playthrough of the game.


That's like saying that the Maria ending is an easter egg because not everyone gets it their first playthrough.

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


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 23 Dec 2009
Notes left: 207
Last seen at: Silent Hill.
JKristine35 wrote:
@Cyrus, the figure's pants and jacket are the same color as James', how can you ignore that?

Well, for one thing, I actually recognised it. How did you manage to ignore that?

JKristine35 wrote:
Other drawings have proven a definitive connection with imagery from SH2,

Which I addressed.

JKristine35 wrote:
so it's incredibly unlikely that giving the figure the same clothes as James was a mistake.

I didn't say it was a mistake.

JKristine35 wrote:
The drawings prove that the Bogeyman changes shape depending on who sees him, but is still one entity.

Except that the Bogeyman you're referring to is the Bogeyman in the poem, not the Bogeyman monster that was manifested by Adam/Alex.

The Bogeyman in the poem takes children, cuts out their tongues and nails them to his wall, stretches their skin until it snaps and all the blood drains out, tortures them with fire, chains them underwater, and chops off their heads. Oh, and he has a screaming wail.

JKristine35 wrote:
That two of the pictures contain imagery directly relating to PH in SH2

Two pictures out of eighteen.

JKristine35 wrote:
is pretty definitive proof that SH2 saw a manifestation of the same creature.

No, it isn't.

JKristine35 wrote:
Those drawings render your argument that he would look exactly the same to everyone moot.

How? They're drawings of the Bogeyman in the poem.

JKristine35 wrote:
Also, Twin Perfect has contacted developers before, just so you know it. It's just that they ignore anything they don't like, and wildly wave around any parts that they do.

Which is why I responded to Tomm and then posted the response in this thread.

JKristine35 wrote:
Your statement implying Mayan Escalante couldn't possibly understand his own creation because he's just the artist sounds a lot like TP's claims that Ito couldn't understand the SH story and meaning of his creations. That's what I was pointing out.

Except that the Bogeyman wasn't Mayan Escalante's own creation, the render is based on the physical appearance of Red Pyramid in the Silent Hill film.

Alex420 wrote:
Then I guess neither of us can prove anything. However, you said that they have "different names" but I showed you sources in which Bogeyman is labeled as "Pyramid Head" which is why I'm hesitant on separating them. I can't prove the Bogeyman is the same monster from SH2, but I can show you that he shares the name "Pyramid Head".

Which is fine. I already said I had conceded pushing for another page. But I am pushing for ambiguity.

Alex420 wrote:
The entire point of this was to make you less assertive because you initially said "Pyramid Head and the Bogeyman aren't the same entity." as if it were a fact. But as long as you understand the other side and realize that it's not a fact, my job is done and I hope you learned something from this.


Alex420 wrote:
And I'm being contrarian so that we don't go around stating nonfactual things. If you hear something over and over again, you begin to believe it. I want to unravel people's core misconceptions about the series. Stuff that seems "obvious" to you may not be so obvious to other people, and just because something may seem obvious, it doesn't mean it's necessarily true.


I burst out laughing when I read these because, if you change one word in the first quote, it's exactly what I would have said to you. Particularly, "If you hear something over and over again, you begin to believe it. I want to unravel people's core misconceptions about the series. Stuff that seems "obvious" to you may not be so obvious to other people, and just because something may seem obvious, it doesn't mean it's necessarily true."

The Bogeyman was stated to be Pyramid Head on the Wiki when there was literally no evidence on the page for the two being the same, and it wasn't until I said something that some form of evidence was provided (mainly, no, only by you and props to you for doing that) with everybody else saying, "D'oh well, they look the same and act the same so they're the same."

Alex420 wrote:
The Pyramid Head article is not meant for Pyramid Head solely in SH2, it's meant for everything referred to as "Pyramid Head" and related to Pyramid Head, if that makes sense.

So then let's rectify the false statements on the page.


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
Oh hey, Cyrus, didn't expect you to respond. (still a quote machine I see)
And thanks. When I feel ready, I'm going to bring stuff from this topic over to the wiki but I still need to tie up some loose ends here.

AuraTwilight wrote:
You're calling people's ideas stupid and the people themselves ignorant, and, well...


Dude, you're the one who first used the word "stupid".
In response, I also added a "no offense" because I figured you'd call me out on that too.
And I never actually called anyone "ignorant" in this thread, so thanks for putting words in my mouth in order to make me look like a horrible person.

Anyway, back on topic, I want you to provide examples of the town being exactly the way it was three years ago on the Sunderland's vacation (other than the Lakeview Hotel).

AuraTwilight wrote:
That's like saying that the Maria ending is an easter egg


To be fair, it kind of is an easter egg because not everyone knows how to achieve it when they first play the game and most people will have to hit the internet in order to find out about it.


Top
   
 

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
Quote:
Oh hey, Cyrus, didn't expect you to respond. (still a quote machine I see)


For the love of undead Christ, Cyrus, stop doing that. You've been asked multiple times by multiple people and now you're splitting individual sentences into separate quotes, as if to spite us.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
Dude, you're the one who first used the word "stupid".
In response, I also added a "no offense" because I figured you'd call me out on that too.
And I never actually called anyone "ignorant" in this thread, so thanks for putting words in my mouth in order to make me look like a horrible person.


You've called me 'rusty' on Silent Hill; that directly implies ignorance. And putting 'No offense' doesn't help. Trust me, I've tried it before and still got in trouble on this forum. The thing you're not getting is that your tone and your word choice, as well as your aggressive style of addressing people's points, is coming off as being hostile or mean-spirited. There's more to it than just straight out calling someone a moron.

And, no, actually. You're the first one to bring in the word 'stupid'. Page 5 :P

Quote:
Anyway, back on topic, I want you to provide examples of the town being exactly the way it was three years ago on the Sunderland's vacation (other than the Lakeview Hotel).


The thing is I never said 'exactly'. I merely said it was suggested that the town is drawing imagery from what James and Mary remember about Silent Hill. Lakeview Hotel is the strongest example, but the pristine nature of the Rosewater Park, along with Laura seemingly using Mary's pictures as a guide, suggest it.

Quote:
To be fair, it kind of is an easter egg because not everyone knows how to achieve it when they first play the game and most people will have to hit the internet in order to find out about it.


If we're going to use that definition, than the term Easter Egg shouldn't be used to treat something as irrelevant to the storyline or 'non-canon'. You can't have it both ways, dude.

_________________
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: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
Then let's just drop the "attitude" whole thing then and never mention it again.
And I admit I first used stupid because I think executing someone wearing a heavy metal helmet is ridiculous, but whatever. Me saying that you seem a little rusty isn't "you're extremely ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about."

AuraTwilight wrote:
pristine nature of the Rosewater Park, along with Laura seemingly using Mary's pictures as a guide, suggest it.


The monuments in Rosewater Park are defaced, there's a headless statue of two men shaking hands, and there's a random huge tree branch caught on the shoreline. Also, what's this about Laura using Mary's pictures as a guide? I don't remember hearing about this.

Lakeview Hotel is the only example of the town appearing as it was three years ago, as far as I know. And it turns out it was just another illusion, which means that the painting could be one.


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
Then let's just drop the "attitude" whole thing then and never mention it again.
And I admit I first used stupid because I think executing someone wearing a heavy metal helmet is ridiculous, but whatever. Me saying that you seem a little rusty isn't "you're extremely ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about."


Well, word of advice in the future; it's how people perceive you, not what you intend. I learned this the hard way.

Quote:
The monuments in Rosewater Park are defaced, there's a headless statue of two men shaking hands, and there's a random huge tree branch caught on the shoreline. Also, what's this about Laura using Mary's pictures as a guide? I don't remember hearing about this.


It retains the atmosphere James remembers, is the important thing. Things like the state of the statues is honestly irrelevant.

And Laura implies it by saying that she's seen all of Mary's pictures...as well as the fact that she's visiting places Mary has been. The insinuation is that she's seeing Silent Hill the way Mary remembers it, though probably with personal affectations like with the Teddy Bears.

And that's really an important thing, here. With how much symbols in Silent Hill 2 in particular double up on each other, like with the Abstract Daddy, it's not really as binary as "Is exactly like James remembers/the theory doesn't apply here".

Quote:
Lakeview Hotel is the only example of the town appearing as it was three years ago, as far as I know. And it turns out it was just another illusion, which means that the painting could be one.


That honestly doesn't follow. The hotel is an illusion but it's based off of James' memories. Even if that individual painting isn't there, he probably saw it and a version of it probably exists in the real world. If it was modified, he probably would have commented on it.

_________________
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: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
AuraTwilight wrote:
It retains the atmosphere James remembers


http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... Hunger.jpg
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... water4.jpg

I'd argue that the atmosphere of the park is completely different and doesn't retain any atmosphere from their vacation. It's eerily quiet, in a state of disrepair, and there's tons of heavy fog blanketing the area. Also, this creepy ominous music plays in the background. If there's one place I wouldn't spend the entire day at, it'd be the park.

AuraTwilight wrote:
as well as the fact that she's visiting places Mary has been.


Oh gosh, not the 'Mary in Brookhaven' theory... Let's avoid that.
I personally don't believe in it, but let me remind you that it's a theory, not a fact.
I don't think Mary stayed in Wood Side Apartments or Pete's Bowl-O-Rama either, though.

AuraTwilight wrote:
If it was modified, he probably would have commented on it.


Even if it wasn't modified, he probably would have still commented on it anyway.
One could say that Misty Day is a modified version of the Banquet photograph. But there's no realization from James, such as "Oh my god... this monster that has been stalking me this entire time... I remember seeing it in this painting on my vacation!". All James says is, "It's him..." which leads me to believe that James has never seen it before in his life.

By the way, please excuse me for a while.
It's 5 AM here (I'm a night owl), and I have a bio quiz in high school tomorrow.

ETA:

Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tTKiIlCavc#t=7m15s

Image


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Quote:
Oh gosh, not the 'Mary in Brookhaven' theory... Let's avoid that.
I personally don't believe in it, but let me remind you that it's a theory, not a fact.
I don't think Mary stayed in Wood Side Apartments or Pete's Bowl-O-Rama either, though.


Mary totally loved bowling. :P

Quote:
Even if it wasn't modified, he probably would have still commented on it anyway.
One could say that Misty Day is a modified version of the Banquet photograph. But there's no realization from James, such as "Oh my god... this monster that has been stalking me this entire time... I remember seeing it in this painting on my vacation!". All James says is, "It's him..." which leads me to believe that James has never seen it before in his life.


That's an assload of assumptions to pull out of two words, bro. James' memory isn't very reliable, anyway.

@*Arcade screenshot*

The same game also uses Movie Version Pyramid Head. So...not really a valid point of reasoning unless you elaborate.

_________________
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: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
AuraTwilight wrote:
The same game also uses Movie Version Pyramid Head.

Wrong.

His name is Red Pyramid Thing, and he wears gloves, isn't shirtless, has visible boots, and his helmet has 3 sides facing the front rather than 2. His knife is also his SH2 one with the white-edged blade, rather than the monochrome single-colored knife from the film.

I'm just happy because I found evidence that the painting is unreliable. The Arcade and Silent Hill are set around the same time (circa 1993-1994). The tables have turned and the onus is now on you to prove that Misty Day is a real, reliable, historical painting. I found evidence that the painting is unreliable and apparently shape-shifts depending on the viewer.


Top
   
 

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
I have to admit, that is pretty convincing, since I clearly recognize several of the other exhibits as being identical to those found in Silent Hill 2.

I don't know if it's good enough to be called proof (as it could simply be an easter egg in a spinoff game which was never intended to imply what you believe, and the other exhibits were left unchanged simply because they just copied the textures wholesale and it was easier to leave them as they were), but it is undoubtedly solid evidence.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
The developers of The Arcade spent lots of time copying the textures, constructing the models, building wire-frames, etc. Even the wallpaper is the same, as well as all the other photos. I think it's very intentional. If the painting was real, it would be what James sees, but it isn't.

It's safe to assume Misty Day is supernatural and changes itself according to the viewer (Eric and Tina in this case). When I first played SH2, my intuition told me that something was very off about it, and now my hunch is confirmed. :D

So yeah, if there's nothing else to debate, I guess I'm done here.


Top
   
 

SHH Cult Subscriber
SHH Cult Subscriber
 Post subject: Re: Should the Bogeyman be considered a standalone monster?

Missing since: 26 Apr 2009
Notes left: 3219
Ryantology wrote:
I have to admit, that is pretty convincing, since I clearly recognize several of the other exhibits as being identical to those found in Silent Hill 2.

I don't know if it's good enough to be called proof (as it could simply be an easter egg in a spinoff game which was never intended to imply what you believe, and the other exhibits were left unchanged simply because they just copied the textures wholesale and it was easier to leave them as they were), but it is undoubtedly solid evidence.


To me The Arcade is on the same level of canon as the cell phone games and comic books. After all, not even Konami really counts it. Downpour wasn't called Silent Hill 9 as a working title, it was called Silent Hill 8. If Konami themselves aren't really acknowledging The Arcade, I don't see why I should.

Besides, that still doesn't solve the other problem. Even if you consider The Arcade as canon, it doesn't change the fact that it could be a different creature than the Pyramid Head in SH2, just like Homecoming. Hell, even if Misty Days is unreliable, it changes little to nothing. We know that James based the appearance of Pyramid Head on a historical figure/outfit, so even if Misty Days changes and "doesn't really exist" (which I don't believe for a second, btw), it doesn't change the fact that James based the appearance of Pyramid Head on a historical figure of judgement and punishment, so other people could very well make the same connection for their own desires for judgement or punishment.

As always, nothing has really been solved.


Top
   
 

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
I wouldn't quite consider it a safe assumption. It is a plausible alternative explanation.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
NanayaShiki wrote:
it doesn't change the fact that it could be a different creature than the Pyramid Head in SH2, just like Homecoming.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is called a duck, we have no reason to believe it's a duck.

#Nanaya logic


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11379
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Attitude, Alex.

Though I don't fully agree with Nanaya, their viewpoint isn't as ridiculous as you insinuate, because appearances aren't that indicative when it comes to the symbolic reality of the Otherworld. A creature or entity is defined not by how it looks or behaves, but by what it represents.

Case in point, the Mary encountered in the endings of SH2. Contrast Maria-dressed-as-Mary for Extra Credit, but not mandatory.

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


Top
   
 

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
I think you misunderstand the scope of your accomplishment, sir. You have certainly not proven your assertion that it is supernaturally shape-changing. You have merely presented it as a valid possibility. Nanaya is right in that nothing has been solved.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

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

Missing since: 08 Jun 2011
Notes left: 92
Last seen at: Canada
I've proved Misty Day is unreliable at the very least, which is good enough for me, personally.

You can believe whatever you want. To me, it shows Misty Day isn't historical and makes it less probable for the Valtiel sect to wear metal helmets.


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  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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: