Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 16 Nov 2018




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message

SHH Cult Subscriber
SHH Cult Subscriber
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):

Missing since: 26 Apr 2009
Notes left: 3229
He also doesn't even understand what "canon" means.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2010
Notes left: 2249
Last seen at: The Rabbit Hole
As a Silent Hill fan who considers Guy polite company, I feel the need to speak on his behalf right here.
If you rolled your eyes after reading that first statement, don't bother reading the rest of my post because you've already made up your mind about the subject matter. Nice TP tactics there!

Guy is asked questions by fans about his personal opinion of James and Silent Hill 2, much like Tomm and other people who have been involved with the series (past and present.) It's cool to see what some of these people *personally* think, because many of them are limited in their ability to participate in forum discussions due to professional obligations, time constraints, etc. Anyhow, the subject of SH2's endings is a PARTICULARLY prevalent subject that Guy is questioned about. Until recently, Guy has firmly believed that 'In Water' has absolutely no bearing on James whatsoever. Through conversations with fans, and the contemplation that causes, he has obviously changed his mind about this ending. Good for him! He had to use very long routed logic, but this rationale is what it took for him to *personally* accept it as a valid ending. And no matter how outlandish it may seem, it's still a hell of a lot more coherent than some of the shit I've seen on the web.

I think 'In Water' is something that was plaguing Guy for a while (an aspect that he couldn't quite understand about the James character) and he finally came to terms with it. And I also just want to note that his assessment isn't affiliated with Konami, nor is it official>>he posted it on his personal facebook page for the rest of his fans. And if you're somebody who's been following his mental journey about 2's endings (which I have been) this coming to terms/final word/whatever really was an inevitability. I've been expecting something like this from him about In Water (and Pyramid Head, actually) for a while now.

He is somebody who felt strongly about something specific>>heard other's ideas>>considered them>>and then finally came to his own conclusions. This is a formula that needs to happen more often in this fandom. Giving this situation special consideration just because Guy happens to be involved is lame as fuck. As everyone has already mentioned numerous times, Guy is not affiliated with the series in any professional way, so he is a fan like us. Everyone is allowed their own theories and quirky outlooks. We're all in this together.

_________________
The above user visits this forum *very infrequently.* If you need any type of response or answer from her, she may or may not be able to provide it in a timely manner.

Thank you for understanding. <3

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21367&p=674128#p674128


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1626
@SilentWren, I'm all for hearing the opinions of those who were involved with SH as well as hearing why they believe this or that, but Guy isn't saying "this is my opinion because...". Instead, he's saying "In Water is canon".


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2010
Notes left: 2249
Last seen at: The Rabbit Hole
I would argue that the entire first paragraph of the entry is setting up the "this is my opinion" mood. Also, in every single interview related to Silent Hill, he has always made it a point to *stress* that he is not the final word on anything regarding James, or Silent Hill 2.

And I'm furthermore going to point out that nobody has mentioned anything about the theory itself. There is a string of ad hominems and straw men, just like there always is when Guy is brought into a conversation here.

_________________
The above user visits this forum *very infrequently.* If you need any type of response or answer from her, she may or may not be able to provide it in a timely manner.

Thank you for understanding. <3

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21367&p=674128#p674128


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1626
SilentWren wrote:
I would argue that the entire first paragraph of the entry is setting up the "this is my opinion" mood. Also, in every single interview related to Silent Hill, he has always made it a point to *stress* that he is not the final word on anything regarding James, or Silent Hill 2.

If it weren't for the very last line I would agree that the first paragraph makes it obvious it's a theory and opinion, but said last line says, and I quote "I am now ready to admit that the In Water ending is, yes...canon." (minor spelling error corrected)

SilentWren wrote:
And I'm furthermore going to point out that nobody has mentioned anything about the theory itself. There is a string of ad hominems and straw men, just like there always is when Guy is brought into a conversation here.

It's an interesting theory, and I can see some similarities. Other than that, I'm a little too creeped out about such a concept to offer much more than that.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19401
Last seen at: #lfk
I feel like no one here has gone off on why In Water isn't "cannon" [sic] because a lot of us have done that for a decade already. Also because AuraTwilight succinctly tossed it away in the correct manner.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2010
Notes left: 2249
Last seen at: The Rabbit Hole
I wasn't expecting anyone to actually analyze the theory in any meaningful way. I was bringing to your attention that you're all Fungo-ing the crap out of this.

This has the potential to pinwheel around pathetically, so I guess we should all just agree to disagree.

_________________
The above user visits this forum *very infrequently.* If you need any type of response or answer from her, she may or may not be able to provide it in a timely manner.

Thank you for understanding. <3

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21367&p=674128#p674128


Top
   
 

SHH Cult Subscriber
SHH Cult Subscriber
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):

Missing since: 26 Apr 2009
Notes left: 3229
You know, I wasn't going to say anything about it the first you did it, but a second time...

It seems to me you are the one writing off what we are saying without taking it into consideration, not the other way around. Saying to us "you guys are acting just like TP/Fungo" doesn't really make sense here.

We've given reasons as to why we don't like it.
AuraTwilight pointed out that James' actions don't fit Shin-jyu, nor are there are hints towards this being the intention.
I've pointed out that he doesn't seem to understand what "canon" means.
Soulless-Shadow pointed why we're reacting more negatively than if he had just said he had some wild theories going on in his head.

We aren't writing it off with no basis just because we decided to already make up our minds on it. Besides, it's not like were being unfair to Guy about this. We are just saying he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about here. We would do the same with any theory that doesn't make sense or seems baseless, regardless of who made it.

Besides, as also said here, we've already argued the endings and them being canon to death here. I stand by what I have said in the past on that subject, that there is no one canon ending. Each ending is equally possible depending on how you played the game. They are all equally potentially canon. So, because we've argued the canon of these endings to death before, we may be less inclined to do so again just because Guy had a theory about them.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11380
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
I'd also like to point out that James is some American store clerk or something from 1994. Why in the hell would he know or care about Shin-jyu?

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


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 12 Feb 2009
Notes left: 7988
Last seen at: Nowhere
^ Exactly what I was thinking.

A) I doubt he even knows of that shin-jyu thing.
B) Even if he did know... I don't think he would really care about it (fine examples: the religious and dark magic books laying around the prison, the magazine in the apartments, the toilet full of shit... He doesn't give a damn about anything "apart" from Mary).

Adversary, you should add a new robot to team up with Dahlia.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11380
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
James is a Suicide-Bot.

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


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 May 2008
Notes left: 1538
Last seen at: Right behind you
Not to mention, what family shame was James trying to account for? Mary's Illness? Please. This would have played a far larger role in the game if there was some deep seeded family shame to try and absolve.

Of course in Water is canon. All the endings are.

_________________
Image
=====================================================
|.My Avatar is larger than yours because I'm a cult subscriber.|
=====================================================


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2010
Notes left: 2249
Last seen at: The Rabbit Hole
I'm just going to go ahead and mention this because I'm pretty sure very few people here follow Guy, but he's said like a dozen times that this was his own personal way of accepting In Water as a possible canon ending. He's not saying that everyone needs to accept it as canon because he came up with this idea. He himself is always going to consider Leave as close to canon as he's comfortable.

_________________
The above user visits this forum *very infrequently.* If you need any type of response or answer from her, she may or may not be able to provide it in a timely manner.

Thank you for understanding. <3

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21367&p=674128#p674128


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11380
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
We're aware, we saw his statements. The thing is he made factually inaccurate statements with an air of authority.

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


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 27 Aug 2010
Notes left: 2249
Last seen at: The Rabbit Hole
No, he didn't. But I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree because I'm not wasting time on this anymore.

_________________
The above user visits this forum *very infrequently.* If you need any type of response or answer from her, she may or may not be able to provide it in a timely manner.

Thank you for understanding. <3

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=21367&p=674128#p674128


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 01 Aug 2006
Notes left: 11380
Last seen at: I'm here, and waiting for you
Except yes, he did. Because "honor suicide" doesn't work like that and James' situation doesn't fit it even if it did. And Guy Cihi did speak with authority, calling the ending canon, telling us that we "know" that the ending is "far more satisfying and complete", that "Team Silent poured their heart and soul into this PARTICULAR ending..."

This is all very loaded, opinionated, and authoritative language.

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


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Dec 2010
Notes left: 451
Then you may be unaware of how many fans show up on his profile and tell that they consider it to be the true ending. This is his way of agreeing with them for once.

_________________
Now I Know, The Real Reason Why I Came To This Town....I Wonder....What Was I Afraid Of? Without You..I've Got Nothing...Now, We Can Be Together Again.....Mary.....


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):

Missing since: 16 Jul 2006
Notes left: 531
Squarehead wrote:
It's good he didn't say he liked In Water just because it's the fan favourite (at least, AFAIK).
:?

_________________
I can't believe i earned 10 Silent Hill cash for this.


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: For advocates of Water (unmarked spoilers):
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 03 Apr 2014
Notes left: 8
If as he does that you in imagination put a cemetary very close to water, then it does not count.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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: