How I would make the sequel.

Discuss the original 2006 movie.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Alessandro
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 202
Joined: 22 Mar 2009

Post by Alessandro »

The alien and the shiba inu.
<333
User avatar
KiramidHead
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 2980
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Gender: Male

Post by KiramidHead »

LOL!

Okay, let's get back on topic: After much consideration, I think that the two SH games that would fare best as films at this point, would be 2 and 4. But I'm not giving up on my idea for a movie of 3.
ShadowBaby
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 217
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: How I would make the sequel.

Post by ShadowBaby »

KiramidHead wrote:I read that the Silent Hill sequel would be based on SH3. With that in mind, here's my ideal casting:

Heather: Kristin Stewart
Claudia: Tilda Swinton
Douglas: William Petersen
Vincent: Ethan Hawke

..
I wholeheartedly disagree with you about kristen stewart. something about that girl just bothers me. But the other three are great picks.

Anyway, i didn't read all of the posts so excuse me if I'm repeating anyone. My thoughts exactly about Christabella's group being an opposing group to the Order, I am so glad that was Gans' plan. I feel though that the events put forth by the game were interupted by Christabella's efforts, that she "cleansed" Alessa before the Order could intervene. In so doing, she set a new timeline in motion. Dahlia seemed torn, perhaps between her loyalty to the Order and her concern for her daughter's immortal soul. That might even explain the alternate beginning with Sharon being called back, as such, instead of Rose and Sharon on vacation like Harry was in the game.

And Dark-Allessa in the film is not Sharon's other half, but rather a manifestation of God conjured by Alessa's intense, *cough* burning :wink: hatred. That's my interpretation of how it was explained in the film. Dark-Alessa says that she "came" to Allessa, not that she was born from her.

So, new events should unfold in the next chapter, maybe similar to SH3, though drastically altered. The Order is no doubt more anxious now than ever to begin their birthing ritual. Likely they would be keeping very close tabs on Sharon, which may or may not force Rose to go into hiding, spurring the name change. Although it seems unlikely that the producers would use Heather Mason, since they already changed everyone's names.
Plus, assuming that Dark-Alessa (whoever she really was) merged with Sharon, Sharon would likely be feeling some changes in herself - and not just puberty <ha,ha> - which may result in her being compelled to return to Silent Hill alone, to confront her destiny as the mother of God. The Order may or may not encourage her decision by killing Rose just as they did Harry.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. ...Anyway. :wink:
User avatar
AuraTwilight
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 11390
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
Contact:

Post by AuraTwilight »

And Dark-Allessa in the film is not Sharon's other half, but rather a manifestation of God conjured by Alessa's intense, *cough* burning Wink hatred. That's my interpretation of how it was explained in the film. Dark-Alessa says that she "came" to Allessa, not that she was born from her.
It's Alessa's dark side, according to the person who made the movie.
which may result in her being compelled to return to Silent Hill alone, to confront her destiny as the mother of God
WTF? Since when would Movie Alessa be the Mother of God in this universe?
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
User avatar
JKristine35
Subway Guard
Posts: 1684
Joined: 12 May 2008
Location: Houston, Tx.
Contact:

Re: How I would make the sequel.

Post by JKristine35 »

ShadowBaby wrote: I feel though that the events put forth by the game were interupted by Christabella's efforts, that she "cleansed" Alessa before the Order could intervene. In so doing, she set a new timeline in motion. Dahlia seemed torn, perhaps between her loyalty to the Order and her concern for her daughter's immortal soul. That might even explain the alternate beginning with Sharon being called back, as such, instead of Rose and Sharon on vacation like Harry was in the game.
Except Dahlia's absolutely nothing like her gaming counterpart and was never meant to be, other than the earstraining mumbling of strange stuff. Dahlia is not a member of the Order in the movie, she was simply someone who was blinded by faith. Religious images of the god the cult worships can be seen in her apartment.
And Dark-Allessa in the film is not Sharon's other half, but rather a manifestation of God conjured by Alessa's intense, *cough* burning :wink: hatred. That's my interpretation of how it was explained in the film. Dark-Alessa says that she "came" to Allessa, not that she was born from her.
Not according to the director and the actress who played the character. Dark Alessa is the manifestation of the dark side of Alessa, nothing more.
So, new events should unfold in the next chapter, maybe similar to SH3, though drastically altered. The Order is no doubt more anxious now than ever to begin their birthing ritual. Likely they would be keeping very close tabs on Sharon, which may or may not force Rose to go into hiding, spurring the name change. Although it seems unlikely that the producers would use Heather Mason, since they already changed everyone's names.
That makes no sense. Alessa is reborn now, and she's gifted with tremendous psionic powers. There's no way she would have any reason to fear anyone. It's made very clear that she and she alone controls both the fog world and the dark world (at least in the movie). Plus, the ending of the movie showed that Rose and Alessa were still in the fog world, so why would Rose possibly 'go into hiding'?
Plus, assuming that Dark-Alessa (whoever she really was) merged with Sharon, Sharon would likely be feeling some changes in herself - and not just puberty <ha,ha> -
The two sides of Alessa's soul have reunited to create a complete rebirth of Alessa into Sharon's body. Think Heather Mason, except the rebirth of Alessa appeared as a 9-year-old and is fully aware of who she is.
which may result in her being compelled to return to Silent Hill alone, to confront her destiny as the mother of God. The Order may or may not encourage her decision by killing Rose just as they did Harry.
There's no god seen or even implied in the first movie, so they'd have to do some pretty drastic changes to the first film's storyline (and ignore the quotes from the actress and director) to make that happen.
ShadowBaby
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 217
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: How I would make the sequel.

Post by ShadowBaby »

Don't mean to pick on you JR, but you had the most to say about my post.

First off, here's what I have to say about intentions and meaning within a story, it's all a matter of interpretation. I don't care who says what, unless it is specifically stated within the story itself, all intentions can change; from one chapter to the next, they can and do change from time to time. Particularly in film. It all depends on the interpretation the writer/director/producer decides to follow.
JRamirez35 wrote:
ShadowBaby wrote: I feel though that the events put forth by the game were interupted by Christabella's efforts, that she "cleansed" Alessa before the Order could intervene. In so doing, she set a new timeline in motion. Dahlia seemed torn, perhaps between her loyalty to the Order and her concern for her daughter's immortal soul. That might even explain the alternate beginning with Sharon being called back, as such, instead of Rose and Sharon on vacation like Harry was in the game.
Except Dahlia's absolutely nothing like her gaming counterpart and was never meant to be, other than the earstraining mumbling of strange stuff. Dahlia is not a member of the Order in the movie, she was simply someone who was blinded by faith. Religious images of the god the cult worships can be seen in her apartment.
You're right, there is no indication that Dahlia is a member of the Order, or that the Order really exists, in the film. But that doesn't mean she isn't or that they don't.
And Dark-Allessa in the film is not Sharon's other half, but rather a manifestation of God conjured by Alessa's intense, *cough* burning :wink: hatred. That's my interpretation of how it was explained in the film. Dark-Alessa says that she "came" to Allessa, not that she was born from her.
Not according to the director and the actress who played the character. Dark Alessa is the manifestation of the dark side of Alessa, nothing more.
Yes, I know what Christophe and Jodelle have said, but when asked in the film "Who are you?" Dark-Alessa replies, "Right now, I am the dark part of Alessa." That means her true nature is still a mystery.
So, new events should unfold in the next chapter, maybe similar to SH3, though drastically altered. The Order is no doubt more anxious now than ever to begin their birthing ritual. Likely they would be keeping very close tabs on Sharon, which may or may not force Rose to go into hiding, spurring the name change. Although it seems unlikely that the producers would use Heather Mason, since they already changed everyone's names.
That makes no sense. Alessa is reborn now, and she's gifted with tremendous psionic powers. There's no way she would have any reason to fear anyone. It's made very clear that she and she alone controls both the fog world and the dark world (at least in the movie). Plus, the ending of the movie showed that Rose and Alessa were still in the fog world, so why would Rose possibly 'go into hiding'?
Regarding her "powers" at the end, it's purely speculative. There is no real proof that Sharon has any powers or that she fully comprehends what has happened. Yeah, I know "she started the car with her mind," but the film neither confirms nor denies that. The end is left entirely up to interpretation. It is possible that Dark-Alessa, who or whatever she is, has gone dormant within her, waiting for the opportune moment to return; such as the events of SH3 when God is reborn. And I know that there is no indication that Alessa was meant to be the Mother of God in the film, but that does not mean that was not her intended role before Christabella intefered.
Plus, assuming that Dark-Alessa (whoever she really was) merged with Sharon, Sharon would likely be feeling some changes in herself - and not just puberty <ha,ha> -
The two sides of Alessa's soul have reunited to create a complete rebirth of Alessa into Sharon's body. Think Heather Mason, except the rebirth of Alessa appeared as a 9-year-old and is fully aware of who she is.
which may result in her being compelled to return to Silent Hill alone, to confront her destiny as the mother of God. The Order may or may not encourage her decision by killing Rose just as they did Harry.
There's no god seen or even implied in the first movie, so they'd have to do some pretty drastic changes to the first film's storyline (and ignore the quotes from the actress and director) to make that happen.
There's no need to speak God's name to know he's there. There's really no need to change the first film's storyline. There is so much potential for things "left unsaid". The writer could easily weave in new information without changing a thing. Just look at the Saw series, that's a perfect example. Maybe the sequel will follow a similar plot angle, or maybe Avary will take it in an entirely new direction. I, personally, am anxious for more either way.

Anyway, I just presented my interpretation of the events and one possible outcome. If you guys are so stuck on one interpretation of the story, I feel that you will likely be disappointed by the sequel.

But that's my opinion. 8)
User avatar
JKristine35
Subway Guard
Posts: 1684
Joined: 12 May 2008
Location: Houston, Tx.
Contact:

Re: How I would make the sequel.

Post by JKristine35 »

ShadowBaby wrote:
First off, here's what I have to say about intentions and meaning within a story, it's all a matter of interpretation. I don't care who says what, unless it is specifically stated within the story itself, all intentions can change; from one chapter to the next, they can and do change from time to time.
IMO, this type of attitude is extremely arrogant. Unless your name is on the work, you don't have any right to say your interpretation is more accurate than the one specifically stated by the creator. That's like saying someone is named 'John' because you think he looks like a John, even though his birth certifcate and his parents have specifically stated his name is 'Greg'.
Particularly in film. It all depends on the interpretation the writer/director/producer decides to follow.
The director made it quite clear what the interpretation of Dark Alessa is, and you can't claim he changed the interpretation before the movie was done either because the interviews stating what she is were released after the movie was already completed.
You're right, there is no indication that Dahlia is a member of the Order, or that the Order really exists, in the film. But that doesn't mean she isn't or that they don't.
By that logic, it's also entirely possible that Rose and Chris are werewolves who change every full moon. After all, there's no evidence that they aren't.

Yes, I know what Christophe and Jodelle have said, but when asked in the film "Who are you?" Dark-Alessa replies, "Right now, I am the dark part of Alessa." That means her true nature is still a mystery.
No, it does not. It's not Gans' fault you misinterpretated her statement. She was merely saying she puts on many faces for the cult, but right now she's talking to Rose as she really is- the dark side of Alessa.
Regarding her "powers" at the end, it's purely speculative. There is no real proof that Sharon has any powers or that she fully comprehends what has happened.
Did you not see the no less than 3 different scenes specifcally designed to show she's fully aware of what's happening? A) We're clearly shown she has the ability to start the car with her mind. B) Alessa casts a look of recognition on Dahlia, who then returns the look. C) Alessa smiles evilly as she walks through the Da Silva house. It's pretty obvious that she's absolutely aware of who she is.
Yeah, I know "she started the car with her mind," but the film neither confirms nor denies that.
Now you're just trying to avoid what the movie's showing you.
The end is left entirely up to interpretation.
Interpretation within logic. We know for a fact that Sharon is good side, that Dark Alessa is Alessa's bad side, that both Dark Alessa and Alessa immediately disappeared after Sharon blacked out, that Dahlia recognized Sharon, that Sharon started the car with her mind, that Sharon leered evilly in the final shot. With this, we know that there's no possible interpretation except that Sharon is now Alessa.
It is possible that Dark-Alessa, who or whatever she is, has gone dormant within her, waiting for the opportune moment to return; such as the events of SH3 when God is reborn.
There's no god in the movie, so that makes no sense. It also makes no sense that Dark Alessa would be dormant. After all, Sharon didn't have powers- but Dark Alessa did. Sharon wouldn't know automatically that she could start the car with her mind, Dark Alessa would have to be awake in her to know that. The only time Dark Alessa was dormant was before Alessa was burned.
And I know that there is no indication that Alessa was meant to be the Mother of God in the film, but that does not mean that was not her intended role before Christabella intefered.
I bet the scenes of Rose and Chris turning into werewolves are awesome. 8)

There's no need to speak God's name to know he's there.
Except there's not even an implication. You're forcing stuff from the game into the movie without any evidence, and it simply won't fit, no matter how hard you try.
There's really no need to change the first film's storyline. There is so much potential for things "left unsaid". The writer could easily weave in new information without changing a thing. Just look at the Saw series, that's a perfect example. Maybe the sequel will follow a similar plot angle, or maybe Avary will take it in an entirely new direction. I, personally, am anxious for more either way.
Considering that there are multiple quotes explaining Dark Alessa, Avary would be taking a dump on the first movie by changing what she is. That's not gonna happen. That's like a Silent Hill game (not a remake) completely ignoring Translated Memories. It would be an insult.
Anyway, I just presented my interpretation of the events and one possible outcome. If you guys are so stuck on one interpretation of the story, I feel that you will likely be disappointed by the sequel.
Sorry, the studio and the original writer and producer aren't going to ignore the canon facts of the first film because a few people refuse to understand the film's storyline.
ShadowBaby
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 217
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Location: North Carolina, USA

Post by ShadowBaby »

IMO, this type of attitude is extremely arrogant. Unless your name is on the work, you don't have any right to say your interpretation is more accurate than the one specifically stated by the creator.
But that's what I'm saying, that the creator has the right and freedom to change his original intentions and follow an alternate path. The Silent Hill film suggests much, but confirms little which is a common filmmaking tactic that leaves plenty of room for the sequel.
The director made it quite clear what the interpretation of Dark Alessa is, and you can't claim he changed the interpretation before the movie was done either because the interviews stating what she is were released after the movie was already completed.
I mean between the first film and the sequel, meanings may change. Halloween is a prime example. Laurie Strode was not Micheal Meyers' little sister in the first film. John Carpenter added that relationship in the second; he explained that in an interview. He didn't have to change the original either.
Did you not see the no less than 3 different scenes specifcally designed to show she's fully aware of what's happening? A) We're clearly shown she has the ability to start the car with her mind. B) Alessa casts a look of recognition on Dahlia, who then returns the look. C) Alessa smiles evilly as she walks through the Da Silva house. It's pretty obvious that she's absolutely aware of who she is.
These aren't fact, they are inference. Don't misunderstand, I see what you see. I also see the alternatives. A)Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. All we know is that she was awake. Maybe she was worried that the car wouldn't start, then relieved when it did. B)Much can be inferred from a look. C) I've watched that three times; she just looks out of it. But maybe there is an evil grin.
Considering that there are multiple quotes explaining Dark Alessa, Avary would be taking a dump on the first movie by changing what she is.
Quotes in the film? Which ones? Christabella calls her a demon, if we can believe anything she says. The only real mention of her identity that I know of is Dark-Alessa's line; "I have many names. Right now, I'm the dark part of Alessa." She doesn't explain exactly who she is. Is she God, demon, a manifestation of the cult's will? Is she slave or master? And no one even mentions the word "cult" in the film.
By that logic, it's also entirely possible that Rose and Chris are werewolves who change every full moon. After all, there's no evidence that they aren't.
There's no evidence to suggest this, but you're right that there is none to refute it either.
Except there's not even an implication. You're forcing stuff from the game into the movie without any evidence, and it simply won't fit, no matter how hard you try.
I'm not forcing anything. Christabella's group is a religious sect that takes refuge in a church. The implications are there.
There's no god in the movie
See above.
Now you're just trying to avoid what the movie's showing you.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm considering alternatives, which is what I am sure Roger Avary is doing... with the sequel. Although I'm sure he's considering legal alternatives as well.
If you guys are so stuck on one interpretation of the story, I feel that you will likely be disappointed by the sequel.
I apologize for that one.
I bet the scenes of Rose and Chris turning into werewolves are awesome.
Wouldn't it be??????


I'm done with this. I'm getting dizzy. I feel like the 12th man.
User avatar
JKristine35
Subway Guard
Posts: 1684
Joined: 12 May 2008
Location: Houston, Tx.
Contact:

Post by JKristine35 »

But that's what I'm saying, that the creator has the right and freedom to change his original intentions and follow an alternate path. The Silent Hill film suggests much, but confirms little which is a common filmmaking tactic that leaves plenty of room for the sequel.
Unless you have proof that he changed his mind on what Dark Alessa is, you do not have a leg to stand on. There is undeniable definitive proof of who she is in director quotes. It's coming off as though you're just looking for excuses because you don't like what he's saying.
I mean between the first film and the sequel, meanings may change. Halloween is a prime example. Laurie Strode was not Micheal Meyers' little sister in the first film. John Carpenter added that relationship in the second; he explained that in an interview. He didn't have to change the original either.
Again, where is your proof that anything about Dark Alessa has changed? Just because a film directed, written, and produced by entirely different people from the film we're currently talking about changed its meaning, doesn't mean this one will.
These aren't fact, they are inference. Don't misunderstand, I see what you see. I also see the alternatives. A)Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. All we know is that she was awake. Maybe she was worried that the car wouldn't start, then relieved when it did.
There was nothing on her face that even so much as suggested she was worried. Her look was about the farthest thing from that and I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone could have interpreted it like that. It was an outright stare. The only other alternative is to say the director threw away a bunch of money by filming something that had no meaning.
B)Much can be inferred from a look.
Like what? What else could be inferred that doesn't outright contradict the known facts of the film?
C) I've watched that three times; she just looks out of it. But maybe there is an evil grin.
There's definitely a leer. Again, you're suggesting the director threw away money by filming something meaningless.
Quotes in the film?
Quotes from the man who created the character. Do you really think Avary's going to shit on everything Gans worked for by changing the core meaning of Dark Alessa, which also changes the entire meaning of the first movie? That is highly unlikely.
Christabella calls her a demon, if we can believe anything she says.
Only a fool would believe anything Christabella has to say, that's the point of her character.
The only real mention of her identity that I know of is Dark-Alessa's line; "I have many names. Right now, I'm the dark part of Alessa." She doesn't explain exactly who she is.
Yes, she does. You simply were unable to understand the line. As I stated before, she's telling Rose she wears many faces for the cult, but right now she's talking to Rose as she really is, the dark part of Alessa.
Is she God, demon, a manifestation of the cult's will? Is she slave or master?
She's the dark side of Alessa. This is a fact.
And no one even mentions the word "cult" in the film.
So? Does that change what they are?
There's no evidence to suggest this, but you're right that there is none to refute it either.
I was making a point of how ridiculous it is when people try to force things there are no evidence for in either the movie itself or any official sources.
I'm not forcing anything.
Yes, you are. You're deliberately ignoring the canon, stated facts of the film for your own fan-fiction viewpoint.
Christabella's group is a religious sect that takes refuge in a church. The implications are there.
That believe in a female diety who has not shown herself in any way, shape, or form in the movie.
See above.
Then why did Rose say 'God is not here'? It means God isn't anywhere to be found in the movie.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm considering alternatives, which is what I am sure Roger Avary is doing... with the sequel.
That's ridiculous. Avary helped write the first film, he's not going to insult his own movie by changing the storyline and the entire meaning of the first film.

Wouldn't it be??????
if it was a different type of movie, yes, it would be.
ShadowBaby
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 217
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Location: North Carolina, USA

Post by ShadowBaby »

I'm just saying it's possible, man, nothing is set in stone.


I give up.
I'm currently out in search of myself. If I happen come come back before I return, please ask me to wait for myself.
User avatar
AuraTwilight
Historical Society Historian
Posts: 11390
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: I'm here, and waiting for you
Contact:

Post by AuraTwilight »

nothing is set in stone.
Yea huh.
[quote="BlackFire2"]I thought he meant the special powers of her vagina.[/quote]
ShadowBaby
Cafe5to2 Waitress
Posts: 217
Joined: 20 Jan 2010
Location: North Carolina, USA

Post by ShadowBaby »

AuraTwilight wrote:
nothing is set in stone.
Yea huh.

Fair enough. I should have said "not everything" is set in stone.
Post Reply