You should give Gans a lot more credit

[Yuki]

I didn't think Death of the Author subscribers used the word "canon" at all, which is why I use it to define "creator intention". If I'm creating confusion with the word usage, I can find another way to phrase it.

As far as I know, anyone generally within fandoms--regardless of Death of the Author or not--uses "canon" to describe things within the timelines of their works (for instance, the SH film's canon). It's just up to people then to determine if they'll use Word of God to clarify the canon; I personally do, but it seems like quite a few people refuse to.

[gustavopi]

I'll need a glossary to keep following you guys already...

And this thing of Death of the Author or Word of God subscribers is becoming creepy! The next step may be... The Order...

[Yuki]

I'll need a glossary to keep following you guys already...

And this thing of Death of the Author or Word of God subscribers is becoming creepy! The next step may be... The Order...

LOL. My apologies; I'm referring to concepts that have been named on TV Tropes; I probably should have linked them originally. Here you go:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... fTheAuthor

I personally absolutely do NOT believe in Death of the Author. There are several cases where the author is clearly trying to apply new meanings after the project--for instance, Ray Bradbury has changed his story about Fahrenheit 451 from "it's about censorship" to "no it's about how evil television is", which is bullshit--but 99% of the time I abide by what the creators say even if I don't like it.

[gustavopi]

Yuki: don't worry! I was just kidding with the fact that some terms (not just this two) are to "tricky" to me to keep in the discussion by my language limitation.

I understood that "Death of the Author" is a referring to the theory that is in opposition of "Word of God". The first one I saw a long time ago. We don't have to follow none of both by numbers because it is theorization in utopian environment (not sure if I'm clear). The intention with Death of the Author is a critics of the traditional view of a creation.

But how much the creator own his creation? Is a creation a simple rationalization? (now it's me talking) A movie is a media where the creations are complex collective buildings. Once in media, alive, the creature interacts and take his own way. Of course the creator has still some power, but will be able to face thousands of receptors that now interact each other too? It was already hard for dr. Frankenstein control his creature that he build alone (with a hand of Igor), what about Guns, Avary, all the cast, rest of the team and all people involved... Guns has an important part on the movie, but he isn't God and I doubt he wanna be.

Guns and Avary, Frankenstein and Igor, I'd never though about...

[JKristine35]

I disagree with absolutely everything you just said. From how I see it, a story belongs to the creators, and only they can fully understand that world, and only they can decide what is fact and what is fiction.

Also, his name is Gans, not Guns.

[GreyChild]

I disagree with absolutely everything you just said. From how I see it, a story belongs to the creators, and only they can fully understand that world, and only they can decide what is fact and what is fiction.

Also, his name is Gans, not Guns.

Honest mistake, plenty of people make typos.

[JKristine35]

He referred to him as "Guns" multiple times over several posts, which is why I added that.

[Yuki]

I disagree with absolutely everything you just said. From how I see it, a story belongs to the creators, and only they can fully understand that world, and only they can decide what is fact and what is fiction.

Also, his name is Gans, not Guns.

I'll second this. In rare cases, as I've said before, I disregard what the authors say--Ray Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451 for instance--but overall I firmly believe the creators have the final say in what their work means. We can have fun speculating based on their answers, or even "before it was clarified I thought [x]" or "I like [x] interpretation better", but I like acknowledging canon as stated by the creators.

[Q. Valintyne]

Also, his name is Gans, not Guns.

Do you not read his posts? There is a language barrier here. Don't be condescending and rude. :/

[JKristine35]

Yes, I am fully aware he is not a native speaker. However, how a person's name is spelled has nothing to do with understanding a language. If I were wrong in spelling something repeatedly, I would like to be informed of it. My apologies if it came off as rude, I was simply pointing out the error.

[gustavopi]

I disagree with absolutely everything you just said. From how I see it, a story belongs to the creators, and only they can fully understand that world, and only they can decide what is fact and what is fiction.

Also, his name is Gans, not Guns.

I'll second this. In rare cases, as I've said before, I disregard what the authors say--Ray Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451 for instance--but overall I firmly believe the creators have the final say in what their work means. We can have fun speculating based on their answers, or even "before it was clarified I thought [x]" or "I like [x] interpretation better", but I like acknowledging canon as stated by the creators.

The author can and should say his own though about his creation, but it's too late! How many people saw Silent Hill in the first weekend? The public opinion is already formed. I never see a critic write something like this: I'd rank in two stars for Silent Hill, but since Gans call me and explain to me what he means, I'd change my rank to tree stars. Also i like to see the extras in DVDs, the interviews, and directors like to talk about curiosities and add information, but about the meaning, he already spoke trough his movie, now it's time to the audience think and talk.

Gans will never have the final say because he will die someday and we will still be talking here about what he mean with the movie and what he mean when he spoke about etc. etc.

[GreyChild]

Yes, I am fully aware he is not a native speaker. However, how a person's name is spelled has nothing to do with understanding a language. If I were wrong in spelling something repeatedly, I would like to be informed of it. My apologies if it came off as rude, I was simply pointing out the error.

You know what Guns is, you obviously knew he was talking about Gans, so who cares? If you would have read his previous posts in this topic, he says Gans. Its not like he didnt know the guys name.

[JKristine35]

All I recall is that he said Guns multiple times over several posts. As I stated in the post directly above yours, I would like to know if I was continuously spelling something wrong, so that I could fix it. It was one freaking sentence with no insults or attacks. Why everyone is freaking out about it, I have no idea.

[GreyChild]

All I recall is that he said Guns multiple times over several posts. As I stated in the post directly above yours, I would like to know if I was continuously spelling something wrong, so that I could fix it. It was one freaking sentence with no insults or attacks. Why everyone is freaking out about it, I have no idea.

No one is freaking out about it except for you. Did we insult you at all? No, we were just letting you know it really isnt a big deal, so why point it out? You said because you thought he would like to know. There, end of discussion. We all made our points.

[JKristine35]

I was called "condescending and rude" for a simple remark that was not meant to carry any malice. You then jumped in, even after I explained why I said it, to again call me out. I am not "freaking out", though I do find it quite irritating that people are jumping all over me for a single non-aggressive statement that I already explained.

[Yuki]

I disagree with absolutely everything you just said. From how I see it, a story belongs to the creators, and only they can fully understand that world, and only they can decide what is fact and what is fiction.

Also, his name is Gans, not Guns.

I'll second this. In rare cases, as I've said before, I disregard what the authors say--Ray Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451 for instance--but overall I firmly believe the creators have the final say in what their work means. We can have fun speculating based on their answers, or even "before it was clarified I thought [x]" or "I like [x] interpretation better", but I like acknowledging canon as stated by the creators.

The author can and should say his own though about his creation, but it's too late! How many people saw Silent Hill in the first weekend? The public opinion is already formed. I never see a critic write something like this: I'd rank in two stars for Silent Hill, but since Gans call me and explain to me what he means, I'd change my rank to tree stars. Also i like to see the extras in DVDs, the interviews, and directors like to talk about curiosities and add information, but about the meaning, he already spoke trough his movie, now it's time to the audience think and talk.

Gans will never have the final say because he will die someday and we will still be talking here about what he mean with the movie and what he mean when he spoke about etc. etc.

Then we obviously come from two different philosophies. I disagree with you. Some audiences took away things from the film that were not intended; that is fine, but I abide by what Gans has stated.



For the record, I don't think JKristine was being rude; correcting the spelling of a name is not rude, and the way in which they did it was not.

[gustavopi]

I do start with Gans and in some point the "u" invade my world. Also "Guns" is not detected in auto-correction. The way she talk seams a little rude to me, to be very honest, but following your philosophy, it doesn't matter what you or me think about.

[TheRedNurse]

She doesn't even remotely come off as rude or 'condescending'. She was just correcting him.
I've been seeing her around the net since about 2007 and she's actually quite nice and always contributes to all sorts of discussions.

Anyways, after I saw the movie for the first time I did believe that Rose, Sharon and Cybill died in the crash and that the townspeople were dead as well. That actually stuck with me for a while until I read Gans' interviews which explained a lot.
I do like the theory of them being dead from the start more but since the creator dismissed it it's not considered to be canon.

[JKristine35]

Thank you, Yuki and TheRedNurse.

[TheCrazy]

We all know, that a majority of the SH fanbase does not like the SH movie(I say majority, because me, and quite a few others really enjoyed the movie)Christopher Gans took a big risk taking a game like SH and making it into a movie. He worked hard, and imo, it really payed off.

So, okay, the movie isn't as good as the games, but like Gans has said, a movie is a movie, and a game is a game, 2 seperate things. The one thing I never saw in this movie, is how scary it really is to those who have never played a single SH game. I know A LOT of people who have never played the games, or even heard of the games, and when they saw the movie, they didnt even wanna watch it again it was so scary to them. So, no, Gans didnt make the perfect SH movie, but he succeeded in making one hell of a horror movie, a movie I would pick over Friday the 13th, nightmare on elm street, or Halloween, ANY day. Okay, maybe not Halloween, but the other two, Im a huge Myers fan

I think the second movie, even though it is directed in a totally different direction from the first, will be just as good, if not, better. I can't wait to get one of my friends to watch the second one, she doesn't believe me that a sequel is coming, but she will see >:)

I think if Silent Hill were a stand alone movie, and the game series never existed, that it could have received movie of the year, and so many other awards. Yep, that's how good I thought the movie was. I mean, compared to other horror movies now a days, Silent Hill had good scare factor, great acting, and a nice, non cheesy, or over the top script. I can't wait for the sequel to come out, good job Gans, and lets hope Bassett doesn't disappoint.

I agree, of course that the movie isn't so good as the games are because they make part of a different "worlds", adapting a videogame, specially Silent Hill which has strong roots, is very hard, specially because the way how it builds the atmosphere is different, for exemple, in games we have oportunity to interact with everything, basically we make the story, because we controll the people who's living the action. In movies the director has to figure out which is the best way to show us things, and the way he does won't please everyone.

In my opinion, Silent Hill was a pretty good movie, I enjoyed Radha's performance and Gans' work. Technically, it looks very good, and sometimes the spirit of the game was captured. However it didn't scared me at all, it's not the same horror type I like and the game has. I hope Michael J Basset brings the true Silent Hill horror feeling to Revelation!