Gans not returning, sequel likely to focus on Alessa

[JKristine35]

I didn't see anything in that interview that suggests that Silent Hill 2 will contain less gore than the original. Carmody was only talking about the storyline, and how they're going to dumb it down because of all the people that didn't get the concept of Sharon/ Dark Alessa/ the fog world/ the dark world/ the entire storyline.

[DaveTheFishGuy]

^ {facepalms} Obviously a textbook case of ViewersAreMorons

I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel, I liked the first film. It wasn't the best film ever, but I wouldn't say it was bad. Plus, Sean Bean was in it, which is always a bonus.

I don't get how it would follow on, due to the ending of the first film showing Rose and Sharon still in the fog world, but I'd most likely go see it if it got made. I'd go for an SH3-based sequel myself, since the girl playing Alessa's grown up a bit since then.

[Leviathanapsu]

"I think we need to make it a little more accessible to the movie-going public"

If this means what I think it means, they will try to do something that doesn't make the movie stand out enough to gain extra people watching it, but does cause the fans to get fairly irritated at what many will call a hack job. This is what happened with Eragon. I have never read the book, but live with someone who is a huge fan. I thought the movie was boring and uninspired, feeling like every formula fantasy I had ever seen come out of Hollywood. She thought it was horrible because it deviated so far on so many of what she saw as vital details of the book. Interestingly enough, the author of the book agreed with her viewpoint as well, but couldn't do anything about it due to the contract he had signed. The changes were all made in the name of making it more accessable to the viewing public. It bodes ill in my mind for any future movies of SH. Sure there were aspects of the first movie, but at least it was Silent Hill even if it was an alterniverse version. Not sure what it will be if they decide to make it more 'accessable'.

[JKristine35]

"I think we need to make it a little more accessible to the movie-going public"

If this means what I think it means, they will try to do something that doesn't make the movie stand out enough to gain extra people watching it, but does cause the fans to get fairly irritated at what many will call a hack job. This is what happened with Eragon. I have never read the book, but live with someone who is a huge fan. I thought the movie was boring and uninspired, feeling like every formula fantasy I had ever seen come out of Hollywood. She thought it was horrible because it deviated so far on so many of what she saw as vital details of the book. Interestingly enough, the author of the book agreed with her viewpoint as well, but couldn't do anything about it due to the contract he had signed. The changes were all made in the name of making it more accessable to the viewing public. It bodes ill in my mind for any future movies of SH. Sure there were aspects of the first movie, but at least it was Silent Hill even if it was an alterniverse version. Not sure what it will be if they decide to make it more 'accessable'.

The Eragon book is a pile of badly-written garbage, I'm unsure how the movie could possibly be worse.

[Dark Sky]

I've seen the Silent Hill movie approximately a dozen times or so, even though I don't really think all that much of it.

When the DVD came out I watched it six times in five days with a notepad and pen to work out what the bloody hell the whole film is about.

I managed to figure it out to some extent, but on subsequent viewings I still change my mind about some elements.

Now, I wouldn't call myself a dumb viewer, and despite many, many hours of work I still don't feel I fully understand the film, which as far as I can make out is an attack on organised religion and blind faith. (I wrote it all up back in 2006 in a very boring essay I always meant to post on here and never did!)

From browsing these forums over the past few years it is quite clear that a lot of Silent Hill fans don't seem to understand what the film's about either, with many seeming to believe that it is a retelling of the first game and that the 'logical' thing to do is for them to make a film based off of the third game next.

So as for the idea that the next film will be "dumbed down"...

There is so much that first film did right, and yet so much they got completely and utterly wrong. And creating a ridiculously complex storyline attacking organised religion is probably not the most interesting subject for a horror film.

If the producer wants to make a more accessible film, then that's brilliant. Something like the storyline to the second game is already a lot more accessible. He doesn't necessarily mean dumbing down the second film, just making it so it doesn't require a degree in literature and film studies to understand the rather dull meaning behind the rather dull story.

[alone in the town]

I never took the movie to be an attack on organized religion--the religion in the movie isn't an organized religion. It's an entirely localized cult.

[Dark Sky]

I never took the movie to be an attack on organized religion--the religion in the movie isn't an organized religion. It's an entirely localized cult.

Well...it's people who believe what they're told and are blind to the truth.

It's definitely about faith and blindness....and judgment.

Maybe you're right...maybe it's not about organised religions per se... Maybe that cross in the background which Rose and erm...Sean Bean (what's the character's name again?!) are oblivious to is a welcoming thing rather than a warning.

Certainly the Cult's faith is blind...their faith brings death! They judge others and are judged themselves. Rose has faith in the Demon by making a pact with Dark Alessa...and her faith is blind (as symbolised by her clothing getting progressively redder and redder until in that scene she is dressed entirely in red...the only other red in that scene is worn by the Red Nurse, who is revealed to be literally blind! Yeah, it's a bit of heavy handed symbolism...)

But yeah...that cross behind them at the start of the film... That must represent a good thing that they're blind to.

"If I should die before I wake / I pray the Lord my soul to take" is murmured by the orphans...a plea that if they should die they will be escorted straight to heaven and not be judged.

Rose doesn't have faith in a God, though. She doesn't say this prayer. When she and Sharon awake after falling asleep under that tree, she drives off to purgatory...Silent Hill...to await judgment. Notice how beautiful and idyllic Rose's home and that tree are. It's almost like Heaven. Which would make Rose an angel. And right at the end of the scene there's the quotation on the billboard from Corinthians...the "we shall judge angels" quotation. Rose doesn't believe. Upon awakening her soul isn't taken straight to Heaven. She is instead sent to purgatory. She is judged.

Which of course explains the ending.

In the school Rose uncovers the placards which read "GOD - LOYALTY - HOME". An obvious connection there between faith and trust in God allowing you access to your home. But Rose only has a blind faith when she makes the pact with The Devil. So at the end of the film she's stuck. She doesn't end up home. And she doesn't even realise it. She's blind.

Most of the characters in the film are blind. Rose is. Sean Bean is...he can't see his wife when she's right there! Christabella is. Dahlia was until it was too late. A lot of the monsters are blind too, have you noticed? Pyramid Head and the Lying Creatures have no eyes. Even Colin the Janitor is wearing a blindfold. And of course then you have the swirling fog of Silent Hill, enshrouding everything, restricting vision... Blinding.

Sean Bean ends up home at the end of the film, though. But he isn't judged. There's that scene where the cop...Gucci...arrests him for breaking into the records office and intimidating the nun in the orphanage. Gucci interviews him, and speaks of the many types of judgment there are in the world. God's...Man's...even The Devil's. But he doesn't judge Sean Bean. He tells him to "go home". Unlike Rose, Sean Bean's character isn't judged, and unlike Rose, he returns home.

It is absolutely fascinating, really. And it does all work. And it does all fit.

And yeah, I think you're right, alone in the town. I was too hasty to claim the film was Roger Avary sounding off at organised religions. I think the Christian cross which bears down behind them at the start of the film (and obviously the Corinthians quotation and the orphan's prayer) are there to show that faith isn't a bad thing. But blind faith is. The Cult put their faith in Christabella and a false order and were judged and punished for it. Rose put her faith in Silent Hill and the Demon and was judged for that.

It's clever stuff. But it's still far too complicated. And dull.

[AuraTwilight]

It's all pretty simple. It's nothing against faith or religion, it's about doing horrible things and using denial to make yourself out to be the good guy.

Rose doesn't have faith in a God, though. She doesn't say this prayer. When she and Sharon awake after falling asleep under that tree, she drives off to purgatory...Silent Hill...to await judgment. Notice how beautiful and idyllic Rose's home and that tree are. It's almost like Heaven. Which would make Rose an angel. And right at the end of the scene there's the quotation on the billboard from Corinthians...the "we shall judge angels" quotation. Rose doesn't believe. Upon awakening her soul isn't taken straight to Heaven. She is instead sent to purgatory. She is judged.

Rose is a devout Christian.

[Däniken]

Rose is a devout Christian.

Upon what is this based?

[AuraTwilight]

The original script says it explicitly, and in the final product, I think she wears a crucifix.

[cascade88]

I really don't remember that being a factor to her character at all.

[AuraTwilight]

Did you read the original script? It's pretty huge in that, and the final product seems to have hints towards it (and there's little reason to change it).

[JKristine35]

@ Dark Sky, it would probably help you to understand the movie better to realize that the film's symbolism is Christian, but the literal storyline is not. In other words, there's no literal hell, purgatory, heaven, god, or devil anywhere in the film. I'm also pretty sure Rose's clothes change color because they're being affected by the realities she's in, not because she's symbolically blind. As for the end, is Rose blind to the fact that Alessa's dark side reunited with Sharon? Possibly, who knows?

[Däniken]

The original script says it explicitly, and in the final product, I think she wears a crucifix.

I dont argue about the script but the finished movie doesn't indicate that in any way. Wearing a crucifix is a common thing to do even for people who are not really religious. When Rose prays at the school, she's absolutely terrified for her life. People tend to do that sort of thing even if they are hardly religious at all.

[JKristine35]

Rose doesn't wear a crucifix. Her locket has a picture of the Virgin Mary on it though.

[Dark Sky]

The original script says it explicitly, and in the final product, I think she wears a crucifix.

In terms of film critique you can't go by what the script says or what the authors intended...only what is actually there.

I don't think Rose does wear a crucifix, but even if she does it doesn't mean anything... Many people wear them as a fashion accessory, for example!

BUT...it can feed into my analysis very easily.

Let's say that Rose proclaims to be Christian...yet her faith in the Christian God isn't enough. In an attempt to save her daughter she turns her back on her faith and instead follows down a blind path which causes her to make a pact with a Demon. A very un-Christian act. And she is judged for it.

@ Dark Sky, it would probably help you to understand the movie better to realize that the film's symbolism is Christian, but the literal storyline is not. In other words, there's no literal hell, purgatory, heaven, god, or devil anywhere in the film.

Not literally, no, it's all symbolic! But the Demon's world is Hell, Foggy Silent Hill is the purgatory state, and the Da Silva's home world is Heaven.

I'm also pretty sure Rose's clothes change color because they're being affected by the realities she's in, not because she's symbolically blind.

But what do you mean by "the realities she's in"? Her clothes don't go completely red until she enters the domain of the Demon. At this point the only other red on screen is the nurse. There is a quite obvious link by the extreme colour of their clothes which links Rose and the Red Nurse together. The Red Nurse is blind, literally... Rose is, by making the pact with the Demon, metaphorically. It's almost a Faustian pact, isn't it!

As for the end, is Rose blind to the fact that Alessa's dark side reunited with Sharon? Possibly, who knows?

She is! By the end Rose is saying to Sharon, "don't look!" and tries to cover her eyes to the truth of the situation, but Sharon looks anyway and is overcome by the Demon. In the same way the Red Nurse looked at Alessa...saw the truth of Alessa...and was punished for that.

Truth and blindness and faith and judgment... Hmm!

[alone in the town]

Let's say that Rose proclaims to be Christian...yet her faith in the Christian God isn't enough. In an attempt to save her daughter she turns her back on her faith and instead follows down a blind path which causes her to make a pact with a Demon. A very un-Christian act. And she is judged for it.

I think you can more easily suggest that Rose's actions are an expression of faith than a rejection. She is, essentially, taking Sharon to Silent Hill and hoping for some miracle to take place. She is not shown to reject anything, except modern medicine, perhaps.

There is also the repeated connection of motherhood and divinity. Rose is, herself, a God, and though she made a pact with a demon, the result of this pact was the establishment of justice, the righting of a grievous wrong.

[JKristine35]

Actually, I think Sharon is supposed to represent God, since Gans said the film was based on the idea that god and the devil are two parts of the same person: in other words, Sharon is god by virtue of being Alessa's good side and Dark Alessa is the devil by being her dark side. As for the clothes, there were over 100 copies of Rose's outfit made because they change from brown to blue to grey to red. They change because they're affected by Alessa's worlds, nothing more. Cybil's clothes change too.

[Mephisto]

Well, there goes the "Mr. DaSilva looking for Rose" theory.

Thank God, that was the worst possible scenario.

For you. Rose's husband, Gucci and Cybil were the characters that "saved" the movie imo. I really wanted to see Mr. Silva looking for Rose and all this shit. But if it means another character, like Heather for example coming, and things involving the drop of this pathetic excuse for Alessa, then bring it on!

[AuraTwilight]

I dont argue about the script but the finished movie doesn't indicate that in any way. Wearing a crucifix is a common thing to do even for people who are not really religious. When Rose prays at the school, she's absolutely terrified for her life. People tend to do that sort of thing even if they are hardly religious at all.

If you're going to argue like that, nothing can prove she's Christian. There's more way to tell the audience things than have characters verbally spell it out, you know.

In terms of film critique you can't go by what the script says or what the authors intended...only what is actually there.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.