Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 21 Apr 2014




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  Next
Author Message

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19350
Last seen at: #lfk
The character was "The Hunter" at first until he was adopted as old Travis.

_________________
. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Hope House Careworker
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 06 Jun 2008
Notes left: 693
I've been out of the loop for some time... has Konami released any official timelines that tie Homecoming/0rigins and up to the last games? In fact, I'm actually blanking entirely on if Konami ever even released a chronology that even tied the first four games together. I'm probably thinking of the Silent Hill 4 victim timeline that came in a strategy guide.

If anyone has any of the Japanese strategy guides—again, blanking on the name specifically—I'm sure one of them has something similar to what I'm thinking about. As far as I remember there were three very thick guides released for Silent Hill 4. The one with the Ringu!Cynthia cover was the final version, I believe, which may have contained a detailed guide to Silent Hill 4 and it's ties to all games prior.

I don't know if Homecoming got that treatment, but I feel that 0rigins may have.

If anyone can dig up some kind of official guide with this sort of information, I think it would settle the issue.

But I have to admit, it does kick the canonicity of 0rigins in the balls to hear about "The Hunter" being adopted later on as Travis. Honestly, I'd love to just say 0rigins/Homecoming/that new one starring jailbird!Dexter are in their own continuities (like Stargate SG-1 was to the Stargate film.) But I also have a very strong, "The new games are terrible" bias as well. I won't even lie about that.

_________________
Image
[ e x a m i n e ? ] [dA] [project page]


Top
   
 

My Bestsellers Clerk
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 08 Aug 2010
Notes left: 362
No way is it canon. There are too many things wrong. The main thing being the otherworld itself. It doesn't even EXIST until Silent Hill 1 when Cheryl is called to the town.

_________________
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." ~ Christopher Hitchens R.I.P.


Top
   
 

Moderator & Cult Member
Moderator & Cult Member
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Apr 2004
Notes left: 10954
It doesn't get anything important wrong.

I dislike the game because it fails at everything it tries to do, but I have no problem with it being canon.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 22 Dec 2011
Notes left: 8
Last seen at: North Carolina
I haven't been able to accept Origins as canon. There are so many flaws in the timeline that it is to the point of being unrepairable. I could accept a couple years mistake, but not the amount that they made it out to be. I also have been unable to play through the entirety of Origins on the PS2. It is way too dark to see anything making it very unpleasant. Even with the brightness turned up it's still impossible.

_________________
"You're not friends with that RED, pyramid thing, are you?"


Top
   
 

Moderator & Cult Member
Moderator & Cult Member
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Apr 2004
Notes left: 10954
The only flaw of which I'm aware is the one Uyrikeustek mentioned. And, let's face it, it's a fact which is of no material relevance to anything. When the Otherworld was created is simply not important, either to the games or any of the stories. It's not something any of the other games even address, it's just a footnote in Lost Memories. As far as I know, anyway.

Honestly, so much of the game focuses on Travis (and so little, ultimately, on Alessa) that there just aren't any major discrepancies involved, as far as the timeline is concerned. What would be a more valid complaint is how the characters from the first game are given quite a different portrayal. And, the complaint about the PS2 version being unplayably dark is one with which I'm in 110% agreement. I had to get the PSP version to finally finish it (the joke of it is that the PSP version of Origins offers such clear visibility that you don't even need the flashlight for most of the game).

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?

Missing since: 19 Nov 2008
Notes left: 70
Last seen at: Silent Hill
I was a bit afraid if it would fit to the rest of the games. The ending (Good ending) was fine in my opinion. At least it didn't destroy Silent Hill 1's story. So I was actually relief. But still, it was a bit unnecessary... since it didn't bring anything new to the original story.


Top
   
 

Just Passing Through
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 02 Feb 2010
Notes left: 135
Last seen at: Arizona Bay
Jeremy made a very public statement on Tomm's blog about what canon is last night.

Quote:
Let me clear something up: “Canon” is anything in the Silent Hill games that was produced by Konami. For SH2, 3 and 4, that means anything written by me. Period. End of story. In fact, that is the definition of Canon. If Tomm says it, it is canon. If I say it, canon. Devin? Canon. If a former actor says it or if some kids in their mom’s basement say it, not so much. Pretty clear?


Everything is indicative that it's canon.

_________________
Image"Lowlifes... Shameless filthy wretches. How you celebrate my ascension with such joy. Hailing the very one you've condemned for generations. Have you no shame? What happened to the evil, ruthless sorceress from your fantasies? The cold-blooded tyrant that slaughtered countless men and destroyed many nations? Where is she now?"


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?

Missing since: 15 Jul 2003
Notes left: 2368
Not much so.

Jeremy's statement is most likely directed at a certain subset of the fanbase that wants to believe that a particular installment is non-canon because Team Silent wasn't involved. Although I can understand his frustration and his need to end this once and for all, he is actually talking about the definition of what makes an official game. Konami production = official Silent Hill game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)

Quote:
In fiction, canon is the conceptual material accepted as "official" in a fictional universe's fan base. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction, which are not considered canonical. It is used in two slightly different meanings: first, "it refers to the overall set of storylines, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text". In this sense, canon is "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows," or "the original media on which the fan fictions are based." Secondly, it is used "as a descriptor of specific incidents, relationships, or story arcs that take place within the overall canon"; thus certain incidents or relationships may be described as being canon or not.

According to Wikipedia's definition, the fanbase dictates if a conceptual materal should be canon. That is why we have different terminology for this. Canonicity is for the fanbase to accept as "official", and not because one of the developers say that it is. In fact, even Team Silent has no say in this.

The discussion of whether Origins fits into canon or not is the second definition above: "as a descriptor of specific incidents, relationships, or story arcs that take place within the overall canon". For the most part, the original Silent Hill game is accepted as "official" by the fanbase, and we are trying to see if Origins' "descriptor of..." takes place within that canon.

_________________
© 2003-2009 Burning Man.
The contents of this post may only be used within the boundaries of www.silenthillforum.com.
Any usage outside of the aforementioned forum is strictly prohibited.


Last edited by Burning Man on 04 Feb 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 

Moderator & Cult Member
Moderator & Cult Member
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Jul 2010
Notes left: 3270
Last seen at: Kentucky
^Your point pretty much became invalid because you used Wikipedia as a source. You could be completely correct, but nobody is going to listen to a site where it's edited by its own users. :\

I don't care what the 'fanbase' says. If the fanbase ruled what was canon then we would have a bunch of TP cultists running the whole Silent Hill freak show. I'm gonna take my chances on listening to the creators rather than 'fans.'

_________________
Image
Music created by the fans, for the fans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vol. 1 | Vol. 2 | Vol. 3


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2007
Notes left: 4826
Filioque.

Canon is a political matter decided by groups of people who claim authority from a higher power based on the assumption that it can exert absolute authority, when it actually can't. Adherents of different declarations of canon then choose up sides and argue for periods up to and over a thousand years. New declarations of canon are added to the mix, more sides drawn up for battle, different sides take and cede territory among the hearts and minds, and the cycle continues indefinitely.

This definition is surprisingly applicable to this situation. The Western producers of Silent Hill (e.g. Rome) declare a specific interpretation to be canon, while others (e.g. the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs) declare that interpretation (e.g. filioque) to be bullshit (e.g. the Great Schism). Everything's cool until ??? (e.g. Sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade).

Ultimately, though, it all rests on whether you want to call it "a dream world that has no effect on the real world," or "an alternate dimension," the difference between which is so minor and vague that the entire controversy is complete bullshit (e.g. homoousios).

_________________
Image
I Go By Many Names, Such As, "Who the Fuck He Think He Is?"


Last edited by Kenji on 04 Feb 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1563
Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
^Your point pretty much became invalid because you used Wikipedia as a source. You could be completely correct, but nobody is going to listen to a site where it's edited by its own users. :\

Wikipedia is alright to use as long as there are reliable citations and sources at the bottom of the page. It's really just a summary of all those sources, which makes things much easier to find, especially if you want further reading on the subject and Google is giving nothing but crap.

Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
I don't care what the 'fanbase' says. If the fanbase ruled what was canon then we would have a bunch of TP cultists running the whole Silent Hill freak show. I'm gonna take my chances on listening to the creators rather than 'fans.'

Same here. I'm more inclined to believe someone who worked on the game than people who regularly ignore simple facts that are either present in game or other official material.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?

Missing since: 15 Jul 2003
Notes left: 2368
I am simply correcting Jeremy on his usage of the term "canon". I probably take creators' comments more seriously than just about anybody else, so I can appreciate the drive to listen to the creators. However. Creators have no say in what's "canon"; they only have a say in what's "official". With the right attitude the creators can persuade the fanbase to accept their work as "canon", but they cannot state their own work as canon.

But it's strange to me to see a supposed fan bashing on the fanbase. Do people not know that they are part of this fanbase?

_________________
© 2003-2009 Burning Man.
The contents of this post may only be used within the boundaries of www.silenthillforum.com.
Any usage outside of the aforementioned forum is strictly prohibited.


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2007
Notes left: 4826
Personally, I sometimes think people just aren't happy if they don't have something to fight about. What defines a fan if there aren't heretical non-fans (who aren't merely the disinterested masses)?

By the way, welcome back, Burning Man. :)

_________________
Image
I Go By Many Names, Such As, "Who the Fuck He Think He Is?"


Top
   
 

Moderator & Cult Member
Moderator & Cult Member
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Jul 2010
Notes left: 3270
Last seen at: Kentucky
Soulless-Shadow wrote:
Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
^Your point pretty much became invalid because you used Wikipedia as a source. You could be completely correct, but nobody is going to listen to a site where it's edited by its own users. :\

Wikipedia is alright to use as long as there are reliable citations and sources at the bottom of the page. It's really just a summary of all those sources, which makes things much easier to find, especially if you want further reading on the subject and Google is giving nothing but crap.


I suppose, though there's been times where I've went on Wikipedia and seen the most outlandish information on there, so I think it's pretty reasonable for one to be skeptical of it. Why can't someone just use Webster if they want a definition?

SoullessShadow wrote:
Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
I don't care what the 'fanbase' says. If the fanbase ruled what was canon then we would have a bunch of TP cultists running the whole Silent Hill freak show. I'm gonna take my chances on listening to the creators rather than 'fans.'

Same here. I'm more inclined to believe someone who worked on the game than people who regularly ignore simple facts that are either present in game or other official material.


Exactly. We just saw this in action a few days ago on Facebook! Having faith in the fanbase for information is just a big, nasty mess. Theories would be our base of foundation, for the most part.

Also, I can agree with that, Kenji. I'm not trying to fight, if that's leaning towards me.

Concerning the fanbase and the chaos that lives within it and what is 'canon', I think it's simply theorizing and debating, which is harmless and can spark many ideas and can lead to new theories/ideas. Still, I'd rather put my money on the devs. any day.

@Burning Man:
I'm not bashing on the fan base on a personal or whole level. I'm not even really bashing them. I'm only stating that I don't trust their theories and what they 'think' to be canon. Simple as that.

_________________
Image
Music created by the fans, for the fans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vol. 1 | Vol. 2 | Vol. 3


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2007
Notes left: 4826
Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
Also, I can agree with that, Kenji. I'm not trying to fight, if that's leaning towards me.

Not really.

I'm far from innocent of being drawn into the "passionate maelstrom" that this debate has produced. Looking at it dispassionately, though, that's exactly what this has become. At the core of the argument, which began with the production of TRSHE (TRSHE appears to be, but actually isn't, the core of the argument), is a distinction so tiny and insignificant that it should be negligible. That insignificant distinction -- as insignificant as the question of whether the Son is "of the same substance" or "proceeds from" the Father within the Trinity -- has grown into a wide chasm.

I think there's no coincidence that this fracas started right when the "Movie Fan Question" (Are fans who came in with the movie real fans, or are they inferior to fans who were here since SH1 or 2?) finally died down. We look like a tight little group on the outside, but there's always some tension between two major factions.

It's like it's just the way we gotta be, or something.

_________________
Image
I Go By Many Names, Such As, "Who the Fuck He Think He Is?"


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?

Missing since: 15 Jul 2003
Notes left: 2368
Kenji wrote:
Personally, I sometimes think people just aren't happy if they don't have something to fight about. What defines a fan if there aren't heretical non-fans (who aren't merely the disinterested masses)?

But it's always been like that, though, and we managed fine. The only difference is that now the creators are saying something about it.

I spoke to Jeremy before like years ago when I realized that there were discrepancies between the Japanese and English script of Silent Hill 2. He was surprised to hear that there were any, so I quoted him some. And, he eventually started talking about the process of translation, and that he may have been in a certain train-of-thought at the time. While he clearly didn't remember why it would be different (it had been a long time), he was very helpful in giving insight into the process because he really did much more than translation.

But when I read Jeremy's comment right above mine, it comes off as... at best, unprofessional. At worst, it's condescending and he has no respect for the fans. Now, in context, it's perfectly understandable why he's acting that way, but I still think it's wrong. And, if I had the impression that the whole staff was like that, I'd be pretty pissed off.

I've mentioned a long time ago that if there was one thing that was a big improvement with Silent Hill coming to the west was that the creators talked with the fans a lot more. Having read these last couple of comments from the staff has me really regret ever having made that comment.

Thanks for the welcome back, by the way.

Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
Why can't someone just use Webster if they want a definition?

I checked Webster and the other dictionaries, but their definitions were traditional definitions. When fans talk about the term "canon," they're not using the term as it applies to those definitions strictly. The term has a different meaning in this context and I happened to find Wikipedia that cited sources with a modern definition.

I was hoping that people would actually look into it before claiming my post invalid based solely on skepticism for Wikipedia. On my end, I thought I made a decent effort.

_________________
© 2003-2009 Burning Man.
The contents of this post may only be used within the boundaries of www.silenthillforum.com.
Any usage outside of the aforementioned forum is strictly prohibited.


Top
   
 

Moderator & Cult Member
Moderator & Cult Member
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 15 Apr 2004
Notes left: 10954
I would think that, going by those descriptors, 'official' would trump whatever the fanbase considers 'canon'.

The primary reason Origins and Homecoming are often put on trial for questionable canonicity is really more an indictment on the overall games than, specifically, any contradictory elements in their stories (which is the only important element to consider in such a discussion). I don't like Origins very much, either for its gameplay or its story, but I still don't dispute it being canon simply because it does not contradict the other games in any important way.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Subway Guard
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?

Missing since: 20 Jun 2010
Notes left: 1563
Burning Man wrote:
But it's strange to me to see a supposed fan bashing on the fanbase. Do people not know that they are part of this fanbase?

One can be a fan and bash the fandom at the same time. In each fandom there are different kinds of fans. Some take things more seriously than others, some are more level-headed, some are insane, some are casual fans, etc. Generally when one bashes the fandom they are a part of, they're either making a joke at their own expense, or bashing a certain subgroup of the fandom. Besides, I don't think one can really have any idea what they're talking about re fandom insults unless they are a part of that fandom. That way they have an intimate understanding of that fandoms faults.
Ok, that's a shit load of "fandoms" in one paragraph.

Kenji wrote:
Personally, I sometimes think people just aren't happy if they don't have something to fight about.

Hey, it passes the time. ^_^ I'm always looking for interesting conversations, though I don't always mean to argue. >_>

Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
I suppose, though there's been times where I've went on Wikipedia and seen the most outlandish information on there, so I think it's pretty reasonable for one to be skeptical of it.

Huh, you must wiki some odd things then, because everything I've searched for has been pretty spot on. :?

Aerith Gainsborough wrote:
Exactly. We just saw this in action a few days ago on Facebook! Having faith in the fanbase for information is just a big, nasty mess. Theories would be our base of foundation, for the most part.

I'm quite happy to take notice of what some fans say. For example, The Adversary and Ryantology. They always put a lot of effort into their theories, and even link to their sources, etc.

Ryantology wrote:
I would think that, going by those descriptors, 'official' would trump whatever the fanbase considers 'canon'.

^This^


Top
   
 

Historical Society Historian
 Post subject: Re: Canon or no?

Missing since: 15 Jul 2003
Notes left: 2368
Ryantology wrote:
I would think that, going by those descriptors, 'official' would trump whatever the fanbase considers 'canon'.

The primary reason Origins and Homecoming are often put on trial for questionable canonicity is really more an indictment on the overall games than, specifically, any contradictory elements in their stories (which is the only important element to consider in such a discussion). I don't like Origins very much, either for its gameplay or its story, but I still don't dispute it being canon simply because it does not contradict the other games in any important way.

I think good canonicity is mostly based on official material. Many people here are actually talking about fans "making shit up." Of course, it's a no-brainer if you're talking about the latter.

The discrepancy that I find in Origins is more fundamental. Although Alessa being burned on second floor versus the basement is a discrepancy nevertheless, this may be considered a relatively minor detail.

But something like, how is it that Travis' manifestations are realized? Lost Memories: Silent Hill Chronicle states that it was only after the large-scale shift of the first game that the town acted as a large catalyst to manifest one's unconsciousness.

This is a point to consider for a reason.

When Silent Hill 2 was released, fans were trying to decide where to place the game in the series timeline. Did it take place before the original, or after, or did it take place in parallel to the first game?

(At the time, the idea that it took place in parallel to the first game had a lot of support because you find the "Mark of Samael" in the hotel.)

We safely conclude that the second game takes place after the original because, as stated, it was only after the large-scale shift of the first game that the town acted as a large catalyst to manifest one's unconsciousness. It wouldn't make sense for the game to take place before or even in parallel. At best, Harry would have been carrying Heather off into the night when James meets the Lying Figure for the first time.

Origins' events makes this ambiguous again.

And before someone says that the same guidebook I'm quoting places SH2 after the original anyway - remember that the same timeline misplaces Mrs. Mason's date of death.

In my opinion, this is why canonicity is important, so that even the creators can be more careful.

Soulless-Shadow wrote:
One can be a fan and bash the fandom at the same time. In each fandom there are different kinds of fans.

I'm not going to lie. When Kenji mentioned different "factions," I busted a gut laughing.

In my opinion, there's one fandom composed of different kinds of fans. One fan can bash another fan just like you guys are bashing TwinPerfect or whatever. It's just one group of fans bashing another group of fans.

But Silent Hill 'fanbase' is composed of all the Silent Hill fans. It's kind of like how some people say they lost faith in humankind or something like that. There not one humankind and another humankind. There's just one humankind.

_________________
© 2003-2009 Burning Man.
The contents of this post may only be used within the boundaries of www.silenthillforum.com.
Any usage outside of the aforementioned forum is strictly prohibited.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 366 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 19  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: