Possible Sony employee leaks filming date
Moderator: Moderators
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
- ashatteredmemory
- Gravedigger
- Posts: 563
- Joined: 30 Sep 2009
- Gender: Male
- Location: Centennial Building
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
Unless you're talking about the hair, that doesn't make any sense. We know what Alessa's reincarnation looks like because we saw it at the end of the first movie. That means that, regardless of the hair color, they're going to have to find someone with physical features very similar to that of Jodelle. And even then, that's running under the assumption that they're going to follow a 'She left the alternate world and dyed her hair for x reason' story.ashatteredmemory wrote:they probably want someone who looks more like Heather than Alessa
- ashatteredmemory
- Gravedigger
- Posts: 563
- Joined: 30 Sep 2009
- Gender: Male
- Location: Centennial Building
Yeah, but if you compare the 14 year old Alessa in SH1, She looks a lot different than Heather, even with blonde hair, although she's only "3 years older"
"Grown-ups tell kids there's no such thing as monsters, that the Bogeyman is just make-believe, and there's nothing hiding under their beds, but that's a lie. Because I've seen 'em." - Murphy Pendleton
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
Unless you're suggesting Alessa was reborn into yet another body, that still doesn't work. We know what her reincarnation looked like at the age of 9, so it's a fair bet she's going to look the same, just older. Game Alessa was reborn into a brand new body that we don't know was necessarily identical to her original body. We know for a fact that movie Alessa is identical to the original.
- ashatteredmemory
- Gravedigger
- Posts: 563
- Joined: 30 Sep 2009
- Gender: Male
- Location: Centennial Building
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
Not really. Most official art of Alessa, Cheryl, and Heather look pretty similar. You also have to consider that we're comparing PS1 and PS2 graphics, here.ashatteredmemory wrote:Yeah, but if you compare the 14 year old Alessa in SH1, She looks a lot different than Heather, even with blonde hair, although she's only "3 years older"
I mean, obviously they can't have the exact same body, right? Heather's hands aren't blocky, poorly textured fist cubes. :P
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
-
- SHH Cult & SHHF Moderator
- Posts: 4261
- Joined: 26 Apr 2009
I'll be honest, I hated the first movie. I know a lot of people like it, but it just didn't do it for me. It did have some good Silent Hill style visuals, but everything else felt nothing like Silent Hill at all. The plot is butchered all to hell, but I wouldn't even mind that so much if the actual plot they got was any good.
I just didn't like the story for the first Silent Hill movie at all. Christian style "burn the witch" cults never interested me, and it felt like such a poor substitute for The Order. The drastically different characters and backstories for the characters I liked in the game didn't set well with me either. It goes back to what I was saying about The Shining awhile back. I don't see the point in making an adaptation if you have no desire to make anything remotely like the source material.
The first film did have a few merits, but not enough to save it in my eyes. The plot bored me, it didn't feel like Silent Hill, everything was so overdone and campishly over-the-top, bad movie cliches oozing out of every possible place. It was just a bad experience for me.
Yeah, yeah, I know what everyone is going to say. I'm being too hard on it, I'm comparing it to the game too much and should just try and accept it as it's own work and I'll like it way more. You are probably right, but to hell with that, I'm spoiled, and Silent Hill is an amazing series and I want the people who see the movie without playing the game to know how amazing it is. I want my SH movie to be like my SH games. I'm asking a lot, yes, but it's not THAT hard to do. You change the plot and events enough to make it work as a movie and still retain the basic plot and feeling of the game.
So, what I am getting at is... I really hope this movie is closer to what the games are like than the first one. But, I doubt it will be. I'm very pessimistic about this whole situation.
On that note, how the hell do they intend to make an adaptation of SH3? There is no possible way to pull it off with how they did the first SH movie. Which means they are going to change it completely to their own story and pretend it is an adaptation again. Which means, HMPH.
I'd rather see a whole new team of filmmakers make a completely unrelated SH film based on either SH2 or SH4. With a little creativity and slight changing the order of events, both of those could make kickass movies. For some reason I can see SH4 being done really well as a movie. Oh well. I can dream.
I just didn't like the story for the first Silent Hill movie at all. Christian style "burn the witch" cults never interested me, and it felt like such a poor substitute for The Order. The drastically different characters and backstories for the characters I liked in the game didn't set well with me either. It goes back to what I was saying about The Shining awhile back. I don't see the point in making an adaptation if you have no desire to make anything remotely like the source material.
The first film did have a few merits, but not enough to save it in my eyes. The plot bored me, it didn't feel like Silent Hill, everything was so overdone and campishly over-the-top, bad movie cliches oozing out of every possible place. It was just a bad experience for me.
Yeah, yeah, I know what everyone is going to say. I'm being too hard on it, I'm comparing it to the game too much and should just try and accept it as it's own work and I'll like it way more. You are probably right, but to hell with that, I'm spoiled, and Silent Hill is an amazing series and I want the people who see the movie without playing the game to know how amazing it is. I want my SH movie to be like my SH games. I'm asking a lot, yes, but it's not THAT hard to do. You change the plot and events enough to make it work as a movie and still retain the basic plot and feeling of the game.
So, what I am getting at is... I really hope this movie is closer to what the games are like than the first one. But, I doubt it will be. I'm very pessimistic about this whole situation.
On that note, how the hell do they intend to make an adaptation of SH3? There is no possible way to pull it off with how they did the first SH movie. Which means they are going to change it completely to their own story and pretend it is an adaptation again. Which means, HMPH.
I'd rather see a whole new team of filmmakers make a completely unrelated SH film based on either SH2 or SH4. With a little creativity and slight changing the order of events, both of those could make kickass movies. For some reason I can see SH4 being done really well as a movie. Oh well. I can dream.
- stitchedlamb
- Just Passing Through
- Posts: 52
- Joined: 02 Feb 2005
I don't get this at all. I don't think anyone is asking for Shakespeare, I'd just like to have dialog that doesn't induce eye-rolling. I don't think that's asking a lot.JKristine35 wrote:I don't see why people complain about the script so much, beyond anything Sharon says (and we know half of it was made up by Jodelle at the last minute). Horror movies don't need to have people quoting Shakespeare or saying ultra-intelligent or deep things every time they open their mouths.
Besides, there are plenty of horror movies with great dialog, and being part of the horror genre shouldn't preclude a movie from having a worthwhile script.
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
As I pointed out, rarely do real people say intelligent things in stressful situations. Heck, people say dumb and repetitive things even in non-stressful situations. That's how humans talk. I didn't find anything about the script eye-rolling at all because they all talked exactly as they should.stitchedlamb wrote:I don't get this at all. I don't think anyone is asking for Shakespeare, I'd just like to have dialog that doesn't induce eye-rolling. I don't think that's asking a lot.JKristine35 wrote:I don't see why people complain about the script so much, beyond anything Sharon says (and we know half of it was made up by Jodelle at the last minute). Horror movies don't need to have people quoting Shakespeare or saying ultra-intelligent or deep things every time they open their mouths.
Besides, there are plenty of horror movies with great dialog, and being part of the horror genre shouldn't preclude a movie from having a worthwhile script.
-
- Gravedigger
- Posts: 588
- Joined: 13 Aug 2006
- Location: I can't remember.
Well if we are suggesting that the movie dialogue be more like real life because it is more realistic then we should probably address how there shouldn't be any monsters or otherworld etc, because in real life these wouldn't exist. I'm not trying to shit on your oppinion but it just isn't acceptable standards for movies to have piss poor dialogue because it should resemble real life.
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
That's pretty ridiculous and borders on being a cheap shot in an effort to negate my point that they really did talk like normal people. Instead of addressing that point, you're veering off on a completely unrelated path. You can't argue that most people say dumb things in stressful situations, or that it brings more realism to the movie. Last I checked, the whole point of the horror genre was to put real life chracter types with real life reactions in outlandish and (oftentimes) impossible situations. It's writer's rule #1: your characters should be believable and as normal as possible. All of the movie's characters acted exactly as just about any normal human would in a situation like that.Fevered Dream wrote:Well if we are suggesting that the movie dialogue be more like real life because it is more realistic then we should probably address how there shouldn't be any monsters or otherworld etc, because in real life these wouldn't exist. I'm not trying to shit on your oppinion but it just isn't acceptable standards for movies to have piss poor dialogue because it should resemble real life.
-
- Gravedigger
- Posts: 588
- Joined: 13 Aug 2006
- Location: I can't remember.
Believable, but not laughable. There should be a balance between realism and sophistication so that we essentially don't get dialogue that is cringe worthy but also not unnatural and scripted.It's writer's rule #1: your characters should be believable and as normal as possible. All of the movie's characters acted exactly as just about any normal human would in a situation like that.
- JKristine35
- Subway Guard
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: 12 May 2008
- Location: Houston, Tx.
- Contact:
Again, I didn't find it cringe-worthy or laughable. I found it to be as close as true-to-life in a setting like that as it could be, and was damned glad there wasn't anything along the lines of 'I'm gonna go Rambo on those nurses now', or some other ridiculous nonsense. All the characters acted believably for who they were, and I don't see any issue with that. The only time I saw a problem was with Sharon's dialogue and the scene where Dark Alessa catches fire.
- AuraTwilight
- Historical Society Historian
- Posts: 11390
- Joined: 01 Aug 2006
- Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
- Contact:
In defense of Sharon's dialogue, I totally got this vibe that what with her being pure untainted innocence, her personality wouldn't really age; she is essentially emotionally retarded and wouldn't really last without rejoining Alessa, as eventually we'd be dealing with, say, a 20 year old with the personality of a five year old, or the world will crush her innocence and probably make her suffer a critical existence failure or something.The only time I saw a problem was with Sharon's dialogue
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
- hellobandit
- Just Passing Through
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 26 Apr 2009
- Location: Oklahoma
-
- Gravedigger
- Posts: 588
- Joined: 13 Aug 2006
- Location: I can't remember.