Sorry to say, JKristine35, you wrote Basset on your post because I'd read it. What's the big deal anyway?
I'm curious to see how it goes when Revelations is released! This forum will need an upgrade! In my mind, Revelations will be more like the game but also less "artistic" than Gans movie. It's hard to escape from who we are...
I did not mention Bassett's name in the bolded section RoomofAngel brought up, which is what this discussion is about. Earlier in the post, yes, I mentioned him. But that part of the post is not being discussed, just the one sentence RoomofAngel bolded. There is no big deal, I'm just defending against my words being misconstrued and having erroneous meanings attached to them.
JKristine35 wrote:@Xuchillbara, you said fans of the series didn't find the movie confusing, which is what I was responding to. From what I've seen, that's not true. People who have played every SH game are just as likely to be confused and completely lost as those who have never heard of the series before seeing the film. Almost no one, gamer or otherwise, understood the plot, symbolism, or meaning of the film. Also, I completely agree with how you feel about TwinPerfect and their followers.
The original post had nothing to do with the game fans. My original post was about non-fans, "lay people". That was my point.
As I said before, you specifically stated that fans of the series wouldn't be confused by the movie, which I believe is untrue. I was not referencing your comments on people who don't know the series.
Xuchilbara wrote:The people I know who were not prior SH fans but watched the film still found it overtly confusing. For a SH fan it is not, for anyone not familiar with the series it seems to be still rather confusing.
Hey. Hi. I saw the movie before playing the games, or even hearing of the games, and I was not confused. What is there to be confused by? Its all fairly straightforward. Sure, I did not know that Red Pyramid Thing was actually originally a manifestation of James Sunderland's twisted mind. But that was not a crucial plot element, nor was it vital to understanding the story-line.
Not knowing the symbolism of some of the creatures or not knowing the finer points of The Order, does not equate to being confused by the story or not understanding the plot. To say "Almost no one, gamer or otherwise, understood the plot, symbolism, or meaning of the film" is totally false.
A few things. You're only one person, so saying you understood the film doesn't put any kind of dent in a statement about almost no one getting it. Had I said absolutely no one got it, you'd have a point about it being false, but I didn't.
James Sunderland does not exist in the movie universe, so movie PH has nothing to do with him at all. The film's version of him is a creation of Alessa, brought into being by her memories of a painting she saw in the Grand Hotel. As for the other monsters, I never listed those as criteria for understanding the film. There's a buttload of symbolism all throughout the film that has nothing to do with the monsters, and most people never even realized it was there. I've seen people straight-up swear there is no symbolism in the movie whatsoever, if that makes any sense at all.
The cult in the film is not The Order. They're a psuedo-Christian cult that stands in direct opposition to The Order. In fact, the woman in the hotel painting is Jennifer Carroll. According to costume designer Wendy Partridge, the film's cult is named The Brethren.
You say the film is straightforward, but it's really not. In 6 years of using various SH sites, I've only seen a couple dozen people who fully understood the plot. Most people think Dark Alessa is the devil, Sharon is Alessa's daughter, the townspeople are dead and have been dead for 30 years, Rose, Cybil and Sharon died in the car crash, Alessa sold her soul to the devil, Sharon ends the movie being possessed by the devil, the Otherworld is literally hell, the Fog World is literally purgatory, and so on. All these points are wrong, but you'll be hard pressed to find a movie viewer who doesn't think this is what happened, unless that person has read outside sources, such as interviews with the cast and crew.
But that's what the movie is showing to the audience. We don't have statistic data, but I saw this movie by a indication (a friend), my family saw it, and nobody knows about the game at the, including me. The movie is about all you JKristine35 describe in the last paragraph even if wasn't the intention of the producers. They own the movie, but doesn't own the idea!
After playing the game, when I saw the movie again, I like it even more, but I must agree that it can be kind confusing for players (and very frustrating) and is a simple story comparing with any one of the games.
Making a comparison with a know horror movie, I remember "The Shinning" from Kubrick. He movie didn't get all from the book, he focusing in the action - but it's still the same story. Maybe that's the difference from a five stars movie from a four or three stars.
That's the symbolism of the film, not the real storyline. All those theories have been debunked by the film's creators and actors. Though you just proved my point about most people misunderstanding basically the entire film's plot because they confused the symbolism with the actual story. That's not to say no one understood it. There are people, both gamers and non-gamers, who understood that Dark Alessa/Alessa/Sharon are the same person living in multiple bodies, that the alternate realities are creations of Alessa representing who she was before and after the burning, who noticed that all the townspeople aged 30 years and so reached the correct conclusion that they're alive. It's just these people were a small minority. The information is definitely there, it's just Gans went apeshit on the symbolism, which is quite understandable, given the first game was symbolically overwhelming as well. Fortunately, Bassett has said he's sticking to the official story and will be clearing it up for the people who were totally lost during the first film.
The main cult in Revelation is The Order, with The Brethren making a lesser appearance. Gans hinted at a rivalry between the two in the first film by having Jennifer Carroll in the hotel painting, so it makes sense that Bassett would want to expand on that. I imagine their interactions are kept to flashbacks, seeing as Alessa murderdeathkilled all the Brethren members at the end of the first movie.
JKristine35 wrote:Though you just proved my point about most people misunderstanding basically the entire film's plot because they confused the symbolism with the actual story.
There is a difference between people confused and people getting the "wrong" idea. But there isn't right or wrong idea, just the idea we get - basic social communication. A movie is a media that suppose to be understood, at list in general, at the first time. Silent Hill got elements to be seen more than once, not because is confusing, but because there is more to be found. There is also beautiful scenes! But Guns and Avary, as in the game, let something to be created by audience. Silent Hill is never a ready story, we have to complete it with our thoughs. It's not very important what Guns talk about the movie, nor the actors, but the movie itself.
What the creators say is canon and official. So yes, there is a right and a wrong. You can have your personal interpretation all you want, but there is only one true canon to every film, unless the creators specifically say they want it to be ambiguous. The official story consists of the things I listed in my previous post. You didn't understand the story the creators wanted you to, so therefore you misunderstood the film. What the creators say is extremely important, as only they truly know their work. Sure, I could say that playing SH2 left me with the impression that Maria is Mary's long lost twin that James didn't know about, or that PH represents James' thoughts on cheese, but that doesn't make it right.
JKristine35 wrote:What the creators say is canon and official. So yes, there is a right and a wrong. You can have your personal interpretation all you want, but there is only one true canon to every film, unless the creators specifically say they want it to be ambiguous. The official story consists of the things I listed in my previous post. You didn't understand the story the creators wanted you to, so therefore you misunderstood the film. What the creators say is extremely important, as only they truly know their work. Sure, I could say that playing SH2 left me with the impression that Maria is Mary's long lost twin that James didn't know about, or that PH represents James' thoughts on cheese, but that doesn't make it right.
While I abide by Word of God--the thought that anything the creators say is true--not everyone does, JKristine. Many people believe that any ancillary material--interviews and the like--have no bearing on the text of the work itself.
Yes, the idea you're talking about is called Death of the Author, and I have seen it before. My apologies if I came off a bit harsh, but I strongly dislike the Death of the Author concept, as I believe it makes intelligent discussion of a subject matter impossible. It really should have no bearing on the discussion, since my entire point was that most people never understood the film's canon story, which has nothing to do with whether someone likes canon or not.
I'm not talking about some specific idea. If we consider a movie as a media, we have to discuss using some basic academic knowledge, otherwise will be just just a "parallel layers" chat. If you think Gans is God, sorry to say that he will probably disagree. You know a lot of this subject and I suggest you to try keep your mind opened a bit.
I have no idea what you're talking about in the first part of your post. As for the rest, your personal, unsupported speculation on what Gans does and does not think of the Word of God concept has no bearing here. If by "keep your mind opened a bit", you're asking me to ignore Word of God and subscribe to the Death of the Author concept (which I previously said I despise), that's not going to happen. There's plenty to debate about within the confines of what the cast and crew say.
JKristine35 wrote:Yes, the idea you're talking about is called Death of the Author, and I have seen it before. My apologies if I came off a bit harsh, but I strongly dislike the Death of the Author concept, as I believe it makes intelligent discussion of a subject matter impossible. It really should have no bearing on the discussion, since my entire point was that most people never understood the film's canon story, which has nothing to do with whether someone likes canon or not.
I completely agree that I dislike the concept; the fact is, though, that for those who abide by it the "canon" is solely what the movie shows and what viewers take away from it.
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.