Don Carmody hoping to start filming in late Spring

Post by **Csilent Ihill** » 14 May 2010

Happy news and a slight of excitement, indeed. Considering Roger Avary is the director this time and supposedly he alone wrote the script in jail (quite an enriching experience that hopefully not only put things in perspective, but may very well elevate the quality of the writing process), I don't see any reason the sequel would turn out to be any worse than the foolish predecessor. It might very well be a decent winner without Gans.

Preferably to compensate the many weak spots of the first film and in the attempt to bring a satisfying closure to the rather incompleted faith of Chris, Rose and Sharon, SH2 should reconnect with these characters, having a shattered Chris searching desperately for his wife and kid in SH. And to make a subtle approach to James' scenario, Chris could very well receive a letter... and there you have it; a creative mix between the follow up of the characters from the first movie and the praised adaptation of James' SH2.

In short and to offer a quite challenging argument, I think 3D considering its priority goal of increasing realism and elevating the element of entertainment, should mainly be applied to the game industry, not movies; unlike movies, games have more to gain offering a much more rewarding experience in the aspect of 3D. Now, that's quite an argument...

Post by **JKristine35** » 15 May 2010

There's no proof Avary is directing the film, only speculation.
And I don't see why they should add on to Alessa's story. Her soul is now reunited into one body and she's living with her new mom in a world she controls. It wouldn't make much sense for Chris to search for her because Alessa is simply so powerful that she'll be able to lock him out of the alternate reality, seeing as she doesn't seem to want anything to do with him.

Post by **ShadowBaby** » 16 May 2010

in the attempt to bring a satisfying closure to the rather incompleted faith of Chris, Rose and Sharon,

You mean "fate"?

Is Silent Hill really about closure, though? Each game had a kind of uncertain ending after all.

Post by **emFox** » 16 May 2010

jdnation wrote:For the same reason colour or sound and regular depth of field and focus are used, in order to direct the audience's attention to what you wish them to pay attention to. That's what direction is. As for the strain issues these seem to only affect certain people, but audiences at large aren't affected. The box office for Avatar, which is primarily 3-D, is a testament to that.

jdnation wrote:3-D is an enhancer, much like surround sound, and better frame rates. So a competent filmmaker's work would be better because of it. The reason 3-D is popular and making money now is precisely because the current technology works and audiences are embracing it.

jdnation wrote:While 3-D may not have the range of something like colour, again it's an enhancer that can be both subtle and obvious. And it's making money not because Hollywood is forcing it, but because people are enjoying it, thus becaue there is demand, Hollywood is racing to take advantage of it. Like colour and sound, it'll lose it's initial luster once people become accustomed to it, and that is when it'll be utilized mroe efficiently. But it will be a staple and get better and easier to do. It's simply a natural progression of a field of entertainment that is primarily visual.3-D, whether it is the stereoscopic glasses method, or by a new method of tomorrow, an inevitability.

You can say all you like about 3D being an enhancer, but it is in no way as versatile as the use of color in film. Color is not just used to draw the audiences' attention around the screen -- and really, one should have the freedom to absorb all elements of the image, not just the literal, plot-related elements -- but it also suggests emotion and information besides. Color use changes from one film to the other: yellow can look sickly (ie. the Yellow Bastard of Sin City) or can suggest innocence (Faye Dunaway's character in Chinatown, who is set up as the femme fatale, but is in reality one of the most innocent characters in the film, has a yellow color scheme around her). Red can indicate passion or danger, green can represent wealth or envy (or both).

So far, all 3D seems to do is toy with the film's z-axis by either extending it past the screen to "throw" things at you, or to increase depth that is already present in the film's image. If this is all 3D can do, then it's not worth the extra money to see. Also, mainstream demand and success is not an indicator of whether it's truly effective technology: it only indicates how many people are willing to see what it's like based on hearsay (which can be drummed up simply by word of mouth or advertisement).

I want an auteur to play with 3D far more than James Cameron or any other Hollywood-based director renown for spectacle -- they'll truly experiment with what's possible by enhancing the z-axis and perhaps prove me wrong. If they can't prove me wrong, then 3D doesn't have much use except to make a theme-park ride out of a movie.

Post by **simeonalo** » 17 May 2010

This total fight you and emFox are having isn't going anywhere.

If he wrote the script in jail, do any of you else think that this could have some effect on the script, perhaps?

Just a thought

Post by **emFox** » 17 May 2010

simeonalo wrote:This total fight you and emFox are having isn't going anywhere.

I don't know where you're getting this "total fight" angle from. I'm simply stating what I think: 3D only does two things, neither one of which, I feel, warrants any significant praise. So far, it's only proven itself to be spectacle without substance.

Post by **ShadowBaby** » 17 May 2010

If he wrote the script in jail, do any of you else think that this could have some effect on the script, perhaps?

Absolutely. The whole "vehicular manslaughter" thing was all part of the plan.

Post by **saevitia** » 17 May 2010

If he wrote the script in jail, do any of you else think that this could have some effect on the script, perhaps?

Maybe we'll get an Otherworld prison sequence.

Post by **Nightmareish Waltzer** » 17 May 2010

kideatsu wrote:Who can't wait for screenshots? Or a teaser trailer?

....

ME!

Me Two!

Post by **Csilent Ihill** » 19 May 2010

ShadowBaby wrote:You mean "fate"?

Is Silent Hill really about closure, though? Each game had a kind of uncertain ending after all.

Yes, fate... not faith. An obvious mistake.

Although the games also had uncertain closures they were often well-written and "appropriate" given each games' final. True, the film's ending is one of the few good elements the film deliver, but I still think the ending requires more... closure; it's an empty, too cold and incompleted ending, and I strongly suggest Rose and Chris to return to achieve further understanding.

simeonalo wrote:If he wrote the script in jail, do any of you else think that this could have some effect on the script, perhaps?

Avary's prison time is probably a growing experience, so he might very well "apply" his emotional state into the script.

Post by **ShadowBaby** » 20 May 2010

it's an empty, too cold and incompleted ending, and I strongly suggest Rose and Chris to return to achieve further understanding.

You have a good point. But I've always felt that learning more about the town itself through many different characters, rather than the same characters in each game or story, was one of Silent Hill's more interesting qualities. Rose's and Chris's stories may be finished, however unsatisfying, but Silent Hill's story continues.

It's also likely Gans was going for the creepy, uncertain kind of ending, but he just didn't quite capture the right spirit; too inconclusive perhaps. Rose and Chris may very well continue in the sequel, but I feel that too much explanation may ruin things. Maybe that's just me.

Post by **JKristine35** » 20 May 2010

Csilent Ihill wrote:
ShadowBaby wrote:You mean "fate"?

Is Silent Hill really about closure, though? Each game had a kind of uncertain ending after all.
Yes, fate... not faith. An obvious mistake.

Although the games also had uncertain closures they were often well-written and "appropriate" given each games' final. True, the film's ending is one of the few good elements the film deliver, but I still think the ending requires more... closure; it's an empty, too cold and incompleted ending, and I strongly suggest Rose and Chris to return to achieve further understanding.

How is anybody's fate uncertain? Alessa is reborn ,has a new mom, and is holding her in a world where she feels safe. Why in the world should her story continue? I realize they're going to milk it for the next film, but there's no need for that. Rose got what she wanted (a daughter), Alessa got what she wanted (a mother) and Chris is just shit out of luck. It's as simple as that.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 20 May 2010

And it doesn't really matter anyway because Chris is a jackass who didn't want Sharon, didn't deserve Rose, and wasn't even supposed to be in this movie to begin with. Happy End.

Post by **ShadowBaby** » 20 May 2010

AuraTwilight wrote:And it doesn't really matter anyway because Chris is a jackass who didn't want Sharon, didn't deserve Rose, and wasn't even supposed to be in this movie to begin with. Happy End.

Wait, did I miss something? Why do you say he didn't want Sharon?

Post by **JKristine35** » 20 May 2010

You're made to see that Rose loves Sharon far more than Chris (if he even loves Sharon at all) all throughout the film. First, Chris wants to commit Sharon for life to an institution, then you see that Rose clearly doesn't believe Chris when he tries to claim that he loves Sharon as much as he loves Rose. Then, Chris forgets to mention Sharon is missing when talking to Officer Gucci. In fact, he never mentions Sharon at all again except to ask about how Alessa is related to her. Gans even goes so far as to point out that it's the fact that Chris doesn't care about Sharon that leads to the movie's events in an interview.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 20 May 2010

Gans even goes so far as to point out that it's the fact that Chris doesn't care about Sharon that leads to the movie's events in an interview.

I wasn't aware of this part. Quote, please?

Post by **Csilent Ihill** » 20 May 2010

ShadowBaby wrote:Rose and Chris may very well continue in the sequel, but I feel that too much explanation may ruin things.

Introducing new characters is propably a proper decision to make, but a subtle approach in order to make it less inconclusive may be to tell what happened to Chris, Rose and Sharon through references by some character or notes and messages of some sort. Some kind of follow-up about them should be considered.

JKristine35 wrote:Gans even goes so far as to point out that it's the fact that Chris doesn't care about Sharon that leads to the movie's events in an interview.

You sure it's not just a plot hole? That Avary along the way just forgot about Chris and his relation with Sharon...

Post by **spunkytexan** » 20 May 2010

I heard that Chris was a late add on Character, because there were no men in it.
IMDB was so far off on their character list before it was released!

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 20 May 2010

You sure it's not just a plot hole? That Avary along the way just forgot about Chris and his relation with Sharon...

It's explicitly a plot point, considering how he tries to remove Sharon from his life, and it's clear from conversations that Rose is the one that wanted a child.

Post by **JKristine35** » 21 May 2010

AuraTwilight wrote:
Gans even goes so far as to point out that it's the fact that Chris doesn't care about Sharon that leads to the movie's events in an interview.
I wasn't aware of this part. Quote, please?

He talks about the difference of who loves who here:
http://silenthillforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2783