|
Post by dreggnog on Nov 25, 2010 23:50:12 GMT
^ I like it
|
|
|
Post by blacky on Nov 26, 2010 0:38:58 GMT
I guess I just get nervous when film makers try making a complete literal translation of the orginal source, because often the results are not very good. Which is why I prefer them trying to be a bit different but faithfull to the core concept rather than the details.
I just keep thinking of Final Fantasy: Advent children. They focused so much on getting all the characters in there, making them look just right and everything, that they forgot to focous on the storyline and we just got aload of fanwank in the end, and I felt abit patronized really. That's the sort of film making I'd expect from Twilight, not films based on my faveirote games.
|
|
|
Post by dreggnog on Nov 26, 2010 11:53:40 GMT
^ Well, true. I could argue that that was a sequel to FFVII not FFVII itself and that was why that was a problem, but in this case it's a sequel to the first movie (I was trying to forget about that and posted as such.)
Argh, if this was just based off of Silent Hill 3 we wouldn't have a problem! Then it could basically just be the scenes from SH3 and a lot of scary sh*t inbetween. Nice, good movie.
|
|
|
Post by Lolli on Nov 26, 2010 21:08:16 GMT
I sincerely hope Vincent is in the film The part of Vincent will be played by a sassy CG dog (most likely a Jack Russel Terrier) voiced by Jack Black. It no longer takes place in Silent Hill but has been moved to Las Vegas, which makes sense as Douglas is now an Elvis impersonator, not a detective The part of Heather is a heated fight between Brittany Spears, Christina Agulara and the other one Pyramid Head will be played by Bucket Head, and be called "The Gangsta Spirit o' Defeat" All characters will randomly point sticks at the screen every five minutes or so because it is in 3D. The film will be narrated by Sinbad and will have a Christmas theme Hmmm, sounds like a plan, all we have to do is pitch it to the executives and we'll be rich
|
|
|
Post by blacky on Nov 26, 2010 21:09:15 GMT
talking of of scary shit, I think the film should be an instant fail if it doesn't have an appearance of the 'Memory of Alessa' such as the mirror room and the Corousel battle.
If they use green screen in order to have Heather's actor play both Heather and Alessa at the same time, the scenes should be creepy. If there was anything from the game I do want to see it would be that
Though that does mean the actor playing Heather must know to act as scary as hell though
|
|
|
Post by mr. worncoat on Nov 29, 2010 21:12:50 GMT
I actually liked the SH movie - for all of its shortcomings, it was about the best I could hope for. So as long as Revelation is at least as good, I'll be reasonably happy. However, I do have some concerns. 1. The problem with a Silent Hill movie made for 3D is that there will be a strong temptation to rely more on flashy 3D visual effects than on an engaging story. Silent Hill is not meant to be eye candy. It's meant to be profoundly psychological and disturbing. 2. I can see changing Harry's role just a bit for the purposes of a movie, but apart from that, if you're gonna make a movie based specifically on Silent Hill 3, then the supporting cast needs to be true to their original roles. Like, if you wanna put Valtiel in there, fine, but don't make him an antagonist. He's not. He's just the Otherworld's maintenance man. 3. No Pyramid Head. He wasn't in SH3. He's got no reason to be in this movie. So it's a combo of sequel to the first movie and movie of the third game. I'm not sure I like the sound of that, especially the fact that nothing from the first movie will be undone. While it doesn't competely sound like it's a stand-alone story (if Heather is Alessa, surely there's some kind of tie-in to the first movie), I'm hoping that Rose's story is completely over. The title does make me want to be sick, though. LOVE: The answers on the wordpress. They make me happy inside. If they're completely honest, then this movie will be excellent canon to the extent of serving as an apologetic for SH1. HATE: The subtitle. It's corny, discouraging, previously used within the genre, and just plain says nothing about the content. DO NOT UNDERSTAND: People hating on the first movie. I personally like the first SH movie, despite all its flaws. I loved the visuals and could never look away. However, it sometimes tried too hard to be just like the game (grab something inside the corpse's mouth, assuming an object found means "oh she must be there then!") but for that I give it credit. The problem is that videogames and movies should be treated separately. I'm not saying forget about the spirit of the games but there needs to be changes made in order for it to function as a movie. I sincerely hope Vincent is in the film The part of Vincent will be played by a sassy CG dog (most likely a Jack Russel Terrier) voiced by Jack Black. It no longer takes place in Silent Hill but has been moved to Las Vegas, which makes sense as Douglas is now an Elvis impersonator, not a detective The part of Heather is a heated fight between Brittany Spears, Christina Agulara and the other one Pyramid Head will be played by Bucket Head, and be called "The Gangsta Spirit o' Defeat" All characters will randomly point sticks at the screen every five minutes or so because it is in 3D. The film will be narrated by Sinbad and will have a Christmas theme You're a funny man, alx. A sick, disturbed, funny man. As far as the rest of this all goes, this information disturbs me greatly. I'm still going to see this movie, probably as many times as I saw the first, just because I can, but that doesn't mean I like where I see this going. The first movie had its flaws, yes. It wasn't terrible, though. When I looked forward to the next movie, it seemed fairly easy to connect with the second game, whereby, as I imagined it, Chris would find his way back into Silent Hill, run into some stragglers of the old cult, team up with Alessa against Samael to regain Sharon, and killing Rose/confining Samael in the process and then escaping to live on until the next movie, based on SH3, would have come into its own. Instead we get this, where, as it's being called a direct sequel but based off of SH3, we don't get any sort of idea on how the kid gets out. Now, judging by the subtitle, perhaps we'll have backflashes and such to explain that. If so, that's really cheap. I want to see Chris kicking some ass, not being told that he did and then dying in a chair without proof of his actions. Again, the first movie, while not perfect, still had the potential to carry its story into something a little work would have made awesome. Sticking with the storyline, there's what Father Vincent said about Valtiel and other character-related details. A bit of deviation is to be expected, sure. Maybe Valtiel will be a jerk, he did some jerkish things in the game, and yet that doesn't mean that he should suddenly be the big baddy, or that Douglas is a pretzel maker, or that Vincent is a talking dog. Nobody needs that. How would that help the story? Also, yeah, Pyramid Head can take a break for this one. Just saying. After this, the next issue has to be the 3D. If what people are saying is any indication, this isn't going to be an option, it's how the movie's coming out. So, either get glasses or enjoy the blur. I hope I'm mistaken with this. Otherwise, to hell with 3D. The only thing worse than this would be if they made it all completely CGI. About the only thing this movie has going for it so far is the openness with the audience. Maybe that'll keep things from degenerating into a sock puppet show. But really, there's very little hope I'm looking to put into this, now. What could've been a few more films is now a throwing out for a grab onto the fandom of SH3. That doesn't taste too good to me.
|
|
|
Post by Cenobite, that cute pariah on Nov 30, 2010 2:42:33 GMT
I don't get the auto-hate for 3D. Particularly if the film is made with 3D in mind. The problem is when a movie is filmed traditionally and then converted to 3D. The recent Nightmare on Elm Street remake would have been the latter because the studio noted that 3D films were becoming increasingly successful, but the filmmakers insisted that modifying a 2D print for 3D would be a mistake. To their amazement, the studio relented.
Now, you guys do realize that its possible to get a 2D print from a movie filmed in 3D, right? 3D projectors are not yet widespread. For instance, the most recent Saw film was filmed in 3D and released to theaters with the proper equipment as "Saw 3D". Theaters without the necessary hardware received a 2D print released as "Saw VII".
|
|
|
Post by blacky on Dec 1, 2010 0:18:20 GMT
Well the hate is mostly because 3D normally is just a gimmick, and doesn't serve the story in any meaningful way.
Also I fear for the quality of the storyline which instead of doing it's own thing, has to constantly come up with scenarios that wil involve something flying at the screen. I'd rather they spend that time coming up with with scenes that could actually scare me, because shit flying at my face isn't going to do it
|
|
|
Post by mr. worncoat on Dec 1, 2010 10:13:14 GMT
Now, you guys do realize that its possible to get a 2D print from a movie filmed in 3D, right? 3D projectors are not yet widespread. For instance, the most recent Saw film was filmed in 3D and released to theaters with the proper equipment as "Saw 3D". Theaters without the necessary hardware received a 2D print released as "Saw VII". This is somewhat comforting. Still: gimmick, gimmick, gimmick, rage, spit, froth.
|
|
SHSP
Nurse
Posts: 103
|
Post by SHSP on Dec 1, 2010 19:37:55 GMT
Now, you guys do realize that its possible to get a 2D print from a movie filmed in 3D, right? I'm dumb, because that was one of my worries lol!
|
|
|
Post by Cenobite, that cute pariah on Dec 2, 2010 9:34:36 GMT
This is somewhat comforting. Still: gimmick, gimmick, gimmick, rage, spit, froth. When the technologies first came about, both sound and color were written off by many as gimmicks. Hell, did you know that the first Tron movie was denied an Oscar nomination for Best Special Effects because the Academy viewed its use of computers as cheating? 3D can be, and certainly will be used as a gimmick by film makers, but that not what it is. Its a tool, and tools need to be used properly to work correctly. Some film makers already know this, others will have to learn. I'm guessing some of you haven't actually seen a 3D film recently, as there's more to it then stuff popping out. In the case of Saw 3D, most of the 3D effects were to give the scenes the illusion of additional depth I found this particularly effective during a scene with a trap that involved falling. There were only one or two instances of "shit flying at my face" as Blacky put it, and one of those I really liked.
|
|
|
Post by dreggnog on Dec 2, 2010 12:49:54 GMT
Sound and color were huge revelations made to make movies seem more like life, because life always has sound and color. Sure, sometimes in real life something will fly at your face, but sound and color is omnipresent and always there, and feels much more necessary than 3D.
Also, that thing about Tron? I find that AWESOME.
|
|
|
Post by Cenobite, that cute pariah on Dec 2, 2010 18:24:35 GMT
Sound and color were huge revelations made to make movies seem more like life, because life always has sound and color. Sure, sometimes in real life something will fly at your face, but sound and color is omnipresent and always there, and feels much more necessary than 3D. To reiterate: 3D films these days are more then stuff flying at your face, the also add depth to the picture. And yes, color and sound were huge revelations. They were also written off as gimmicks when they first came about.
|
|
|
Post by blacky on Dec 3, 2010 1:17:36 GMT
Well I did say 3D films are Normally a gimmick. I wasn't saying they haven't got potential, it's more that I am worried they arn't going to use it to it's potential in this up comming film and it would just fall into being a gimmick.
Just because the creators say their use of 3D is justifed doesn't mean it is actually going to be justifed, any more than having Pyramid head in the last film was justfied, even though Gans said it was.
in short, I have proublems trusting filmmakers when they talk about this sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by dreggnog on Dec 3, 2010 11:46:25 GMT
Yeah, I believe that 3D can be used in a way that's not a gimmick. I just don't believe that THIS movie will use it in a meaningful way, and I'm not sure it's worth it to try. That money could be spent on more props or costumes (cg or real) or hell, a few more takes.
|
|