Long but relevent (and hopefully interesting) post ahead for people wondering about/hoping for a third movie. TLDR version: The economic reality is that if there is one, and it's not a reboot way down the line, it'll probably go straight to video (though I'd be happy if it weren't!). Details below:
The movie business is a cruel mistress. Considering the financial performance of Revelation it's highly unlikely we'll see a third film anytime soon unless it goes straight to video or gets a limited theatrical release. The movie made $50 million worldwide on a $20 million production budget, true, and Bassett confirmed it made money for the producers. But Open Road, the US distributor, spent $20 million on marketing and distribution, plus whatever it cost to buy the rights in the first place. They only got money from the North American box office, since it was released by different companies everywhere else.
They didn't even make $20 million in North American box office just looking at the total numbers - and you also need to keep in mind that the actual theatres take a cut of the box office, so the distributor typically only gets about 60%. That'd put Open Road's take at less than $11 million against at least $20 million in expendiatures.
Of course, they also get money from DVD/Blu-ray sales - or they would, if they were doing them, but Open Road actually decided not to burden themselves with the financial responsibility of doing that release and licensed it out to Universal Home Entertainment instead. Obviously I don't know what kind of contract they have in this specific instance, but usually this sort of deal amounts to a flat rate licensing fee where the release company (Universal, in this case) gets the money from the actual sales. Open Road spared themselves the expense of mounting a release and marketing campaign on home video, sure, but they also likely cut out any chance of making money from said release outside of whatever Universal paid for the rights (and there's very little chance they paid $9 million for a theatrical flop).
In short, it's probably the case the US distributor lost money on the movie. Obviously, that means they won't be terribly excited to repeat it with a third film. Of course, Columbia pictures distributed the first film and declined the second, which is why the sequel had to be released by such a new, small-time distributor. Open Road losing money on the film effectively cuts a hole in that minor-studio "safety net" - other, similar distrubutors will also be much more wary of releasing a Silent Hill film in theatres now.
It's very likely that Davis Films is all for making another one; they made money on Revelation, and in interviews even after the disappointing opening weekend, producer Samuel Hadida seemed excited about the possibilites. The problem is that they finance movies through pre-sales; essentially, they sell the "package" to distributors before the movie is made. They'll say "it's going to be a movie in such-and-such franchise, with so-and-so writing and directing, and him-and-her starring, in 3D" - and see who's interested in distributing the movie in their company's territories. If all goes well, these companies buy the rights to release the movie in their country before the movie actually exists.
The money Davis Films makes from these sales is then used as the film's production budget, spent on actually making the movie. In some cases, films will be entirely financed this way, which is great for the producers because they've broken even before the movie ever opens. Sometimes it's simply a portion of the budget. In a company like Davis Films' case, it's a very large portion of the budget or even the entire budget. Therefore, the interest of distribution companies (and their belief they can actually make money by buying the rights and releasing the film) is the single biggest factor in a movie actually getting made.
Different countries' distributors will pay different amounts for a movie depending on how much they think they can make on it. Obviously, this means the bigger the country's film market, the more it's worth. The US is currently the world's largest and most valuable film market (though China is gaining ground pretty fast and India is nothing to sneeze at). That means a really big chunk of change to make the movie comes from a US distributor. And since Open Road didn't do well as the distributor for Revelation, it's very likely the required interest (and money) will not be there.
Some countries' distributors will probably be interested in a Silent Hill 3. In Russia, for example, Revelation did quite well. It opened at #1 in Hong Kong, Thailand, and Malaysia. It also did quite well in Ukraine. It cracked the top 3 in several other small territories as well. The issue is that, with the exception of Russia, these are very small markets. In most places in the world it performed similarly to America, opening at #5 or below and dropping fairly fast. There's no guarantee these distributors will have any interest in releasing another Silent Hill in their countries, and if they aren't, there goes the production money which is desperately needed in the probable absence of a US distributor.
Distributors will only buy the film rights for less than they think they can make - quite a bit less, since they will also need to spend money on marketing and still turn a profit. So even though Revelation made $13 million in Russia, no Russian distributor in their right mind is going to offer anywhere near that amount for a third movie. The bottom line is that it will be pretty hard to actually raise the money to make another film. $20 million will be almost impossible.
Even if they do manage to raise enough money from foreign distributors to make a movie, they still need a distributor to get it into US theatres. As previously mentioned, that will be very hard now. Some companies like Freestlye Releasing specialize in putting out independent product other studios won't touch and sending them into wide release. They take a flat fee and none of the box office revenue, and manage marketing and distribution. That sounds great, except they don't actually PAY for the film prints or marketing; that's all on the producers or a third-party company. And their results speak for themselves... in a pretty piss-poor way. Any success at Freestyle is a fluke. Their biggest hit was The Illusionist, which made $40 million... but was a co-release with a different company. Their biggest hit without another company was An American Haunting at just under $20 million after adjusting for inflation. Their average for a wide release is only about $5 million. In essence, they're for people who are desperate to get their movie released at any cost (their work with Uwe Boll after Lionsgate, Artisan, and Romar dumped him is a good indicator of this). It's not likely Davis Films would go this route; it's too expensive since they'd have to pay Freestyle and still do their own marketing, and the return on investment would probably be pretty damn low.
If they can raise any sort of money for a third movie it'd probably be closer to a DVD movie budget. Since they'll have a hard time finding theatrical distribution, that's a good match. Assuming Revelation sells well on home video and on demand, this is actually a pretty decently plausible possibility. This is the route that's kept franchises like Hellraiser, Amityville, and Children of the Corn alive. Anchor Bay, Dimension, Fox, and Lionsgate do this a lot (hell, Fox has made 4 direct-to-video Wrong Turn sequels in the past six years). Of course, the quality of said franchises' direct-to-video movies is... questionable (though Daniel Licht did work an an Amityville and a Children of the Corn, coincidentally).
So who knows. Maybe some day in the next few years there'll be a third flick about Silent Hill, West Virginia in our Netflix queues. Or none at all. But on a theatre marquee? Sadly, probably not.
First of all, wrong forum. This should be in the Media forum, not the General Discussion forum which is meant solely for the video games.
I couldn't give less of a darn about the money and production values involved in making movies, video games, etc. Money is nothing more than green paper we give imaginary value to through the usage of numbers in a capitalist society.
I care about the experience created, and whether or not it's of high quality. Revelation made a lot of dough at the box office, but it was critically panned by everyone. The moment you make a product for the sole purpose of money (and therefore craft your product to whatever can obtain the most money), it becomes stale. The trailers for Revelation pretty much spoiled the whole thing for me. I want passion and soul and excitement, and I'm not sure there's anyone out there experienced enough with the series to produce a third movie without it being another failure.
At this point, I think Konami should stop giving their Silent Hill rights to the film companies and just focus solely on the video games, which is another side of SIlent Hill that has been suffering lately as well, but that's another off-topic story I'll leave for later. And I don't know what else to say, since your post was more of a self-blog I can only nod my head to, so I'll just finish here.
Apologies about the section. This was originally a reply to another thread about the movie in this section, I split it off when I realized how long it was. If there's someone who can move threads or something that's fine.
Not sure why you'd need something else to say; you stated an opinion and brought up topics of discussion related to the original post. That's pretty much all anyone could ask.
I agree money is second to creativity and enjoyment when it comes to what matters for the end consumer and, ideally, the creator. And it's a shame how many interesting ideas never get off the ground because of money. That said, it is an unfortunate reality of the business. I thought some people might like to get insight into that since there's chatter about a third movie.
I wouldn't mind seeing another one, but I agree the focus on the games is more important since they're the "core" of the franchise. And of course, this series in particular has always been pretty cinematic. The real concern is that if we do end up with a deluge of crappy direct-to-video movies, it could cheapen the franchise in the public's mind (which is, as you noted, already a problem it's been having lately).
I'm hoping to see a third film. Did you see the way Revelation ended? There has to be at least one more movie. Rose is stuck there somewhere, Chris is looking for her & those police that went to Silent Hill in search of Heather....the next film will be epic; if there will be another one.
I must agree with Alex- I'd prefer if Konami just sticks to game development, and forget the movies. To me, there's yet to be a truly GOOD film adaptation of SH, making it strictly a game to me. However, that's just my own personal opinion; I'd just rather SH stay away from the movie box office.
For me,its not true,Konami did well with the first film.
All they need is several things to make the movie even more acceptable,like using different storyline from the original Silent hill game,so people won't expect the movie to EXACTLY the same as the game (which is almost impossible at some point),and if they want to make an adaptation,please stop making retcons,which only confuse the watcher. (or even us)
Hey, I buy dvds. I don't care too much for blu Ray, and while I enjoy Netflix, and torrents, i still rather HAVE the dvds for when the net goes out, not to mention Netflix doesn't always stream the movies you want.
Just this last week, I lost my cable and internet because the line was torn down by torrential wind. I had NOTHING to watch for a week because almost everything we have was on netflix.
LOL Nah, I wasn't offended, more like, hey I have a good reason why you buy dvds/blu rays. And yeah, I have a few blu ray dvds and a blu ray player, but I've never noticed a difference. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough for it :P
Hmm I have all my game systems on hdmi, as well as my cable boxes. All tvs are upgraded, and still not seeing a difference :( Idk, Jarrod tends to think that the blu ray player we have sucks and thats why
This figure includes Blu-ray as well as standard DVD. Torrenting and YouTube don't make the studio any money so they're irrelevant in this case. Revelation isn't even available on Netflix streaming yet; not sure if this rental figure counts Netflix/Blockbuster online rentals.
Even if DVD sales were unimportant (they're not, though they are in decline), Revelation's sales are disappointing.
Ha ha, I still have DVDs... especially with SH since I collect all its merchandise. I don't have Blu-ray for the same reasons as Enjoyableari- hdmi cables and also it's currently expensive for us... I'd love to one day have it though. (:
And well, despite me being a fan of Revelation if you kick the "true" storyline aside, it's understandable why the sales are lower than fans would like. Especially, in my opinion, if you didn't watch it in 3D. When my friend and I first saw it in theaters we enjoyed the 3D edition, which made certain aspects of the film much, much more enjoyable, when specific theatrics were actually painfully cheesy in standard vision. For example and easily the worst, when Douglas has his fingers severed off by the Missionary. It looked very cool in 3D, but if viewing normally? Oh it's horrendous to watch. The occasional blood-splatters, too, such as when the nurses were assaulting the Brethren or when Heather shot a humanoid monster through the mouth: They too were pretty gnarly in 3D, but excruciatingly over-dramatic without it. Just same old fake gore... Revelation was designed to be a 3D experience, and I can certainly say it's meant to be viewed that way, or as previously stated otherwise certain themes are painful to watch. 3D aside, one scene in specific haunts me to this day, involving the Mock Spider. Now as we know it was the only beast completely dependent on animation, and the team did a superb job! It fit in well, although maintained a supernatural feel, which made it so disturbing. But the one scene that literally makes me cringe every time is when it decapitates the mannequin girl and impales its head with that black tube via the fingertip. Worst scene in the movie if you ask me. It's just... way, way too fake to be in a horror movie, considering that one scene nearly morphed it into a comedy. Lastly, the content itself. I mean I'll admit that I appreciate how the movie was at least more like the game, but at the same time it would only please mostly the gaming audience as so much would've perplexed those entirely unexposed to the SH storyline. The ending, especially. Most people always want some sort of "good" curtain close, not saying the ending has to be in a necessarily good situation. Plenty of extremely successful films, such as Batman: The Dark Knight just as an example, ended at a stressful cliffhanger but was one hell of a success, as was the more current sequel, which also had a perplexing cliffhanger for those who didn't catch what was going on. As with SH:R, only us fans knew what was going on, right? We knew that was Travis Grady, Alessa's savior. We knew the likelyhood that the bus entering Silent Hill was Murphy Pendleton's, alluding to the possibile focus of a next film, if it is to happen. But for those whom had never played the saga? The ending would've been highly insignificant and, well, bland.
Well I wouldn't mind a third movie, maybe incorperate the 2nd or 4th game. But a response to AlexShepard, I ended up buying two copys of the movie. I bought the regular dvd because I didn't have my PS3 yet. And then I bought the blueray because it usually looks better than dvds.
AlessaGillespie wrote: Speak for yourself. I think the first movie is a great work of art, and not laughable in the least.
It was just "Good", but not great. I liked it. But the second movie is worthy of being laughed at. Looking at the recent games, the recent tech problems in all 3 2012 silent hill titles and the downright awful 2012 movie, my comment on this series being a "Laughing Matter" is true. I know a few people who say this series is garbage and only played the new titles. I remember getting my younger brother to play downpour. He hated it. I got him to play Silent Hill 3 and he loved it. He asked if it just came out and i said it was 10 years old. He was shocked that downpour was newer. This is sad, because many people buying these new garbage games will never experience a time the series was good. This is also true for Resident Evil.
Silent Hill: Revelation was not that bad, in fact, as you all know that it's the "sequel" to the first film and-- in my opinion, I really liked the film-- even though it had less scares and all, I think SHR was awesome!
Spenced031 wrote: Silent Hill: Revelation was not that bad, in fact, as you all know that it's the "sequel" to the first film and-- in my opinion, I really liked the film-- even though it had less scares and all, I think SHR was awesome!
Yes, I agree. Revelation might not be the best film ever, but I still think it was great.
Not to sound smart-alecky or anything, but taken from dictionary.com:
1.) a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work.
"Revelation" changed numerous things. The Order, Alessa's appearance and her very own purpose was altered. In the pilot film, Alessa was scorned and practically "killed" for being a "witch", yet in "Revelation", it is directly stated while Heather is reading her father's notes that the Order was waiting for a child to be born to be the vessel of their god. It is a rough adaptation to the third game, not a sequel by its legitimate definition.
Its not really a sequel, no matter how hard it tried. It did a very poor job on following up the last film, and added too many plotholes. Whats worse is the film went absolutely nowhere. I think the only reason why it was based on Silent Hill 3 was because it was a best selling game and direct followup to the original, so thats why they did it.
Pretty much a simple cash in. (That failed. Look at money stats, they made pretty much nothing).
This is going to be kinda a surprise, but even the Resident Evil movies make more, and every single one gets worse reception than the SH films.
Id rather them end the movies before they try to make a movie based on Silent Hill 2 and shat all over its good rep.
Ha ha I swear if an adaptation of SH2 comes out? NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE I will go right to the company's door and RIIIIIIOOOOOT. B| You probably hear it all the time, but that game is sacred to most of the fanbase, including to me. A filming industry. Better not. Touch it. |: Realistically however, I do doubt this will occur seeing as Pyramid Head has already been given a purpose in the film series, and PH's biggest role is IN SH2. It would only cause utter confusion.
I too wish adaptations of SH would just stop, especially after the disappointment of Revelation. I think I may have said this before, but the only place it did quite well in was Japan. Bassett tried too hard to mesh the game into the pilot film's storyline, which was simply impossible. As you mentioned, I think the very best way to explain Revelation would be just a field of plotholes. What especially irked me was the fact that out of the damn sky suddenly arrived "oh hey, you weren't just here to stop Alessa, we've also magically knocked you up." Wat. I will at least say it had a couple decent voice-actors, like Mr. McDowell and Deborah Unger.
Although, to my understanding, I think SH2 was the best-selling... I do know it's the only installment in PS's Greatest Hits.
I could see a good Silent Hill 2 film happening but the problem with creating it is that we hardcore silent hill fans have Guy's voice burnt into our memories and hearing a different voice makes us feel uncomfortable such as when we heard TROY BAKER'S HEAVING VOICE. After a while, I think we'd get comfortable but I feel like it would be a problem at first but I could see a Silent Hill 2 film or even SILENT HILL 4 FILM BEING MADE. HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE?!
Canieattacos wrote: I could see a good Silent Hill 2 film happening but the problem with creating it is that we hardcore silent hill fans have Guy's voice burnt into our memories and hearing a different voice makes us feel uncomfortable such as when we heard TROY BAKER'S HEAVING VOICE. After a while, I think we'd get comfortable but I feel like it would be a problem at first but I could see a Silent Hill 2 film or even SILENT HILL 4 FILM BEING MADE. HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE?!
Personally, they should just leave those alone entirely. They have yet to be soiled by a movie and thats just fine. If they REALLY need to make another movie, they should just do an original movie with absolutely no ties to the previous. Maybe then, it will be successful. One of the biggest reasons SH Revelations failed was everyone was looking for it to be like Silent Hill 3, and the writers/producers tried too hard to make it like Silent Hill 3. That proved to be a failed attempt.
It's also highly unlikely that they would make another Silent Hill movie about the same thing. Honestly, they could just make another movie with no ties to any of the movies at all and it could be centered around Silent Hill. I think it would be pretty cool to see a Silent Hill movie just about Silent Hill.
Kudos, Ccrogers. If another film pops out, just pleeeaaase... let it be an original one. Personally me myself could not tolerate a SH2 adaptation... I just... no. Nononononono I cannot. Although, I really wouldn't doubt it that's what they try, the more I think about it... It's the franchise's most successful game, and the filming industry has no way of knowing just how dear a game may be to the fanbase. Ha ha, one quote that's actually always stuck with me from the first film's extra, "Path of Darkness", was something about how protective this fanbase is over "our" games. Whiiich I can agree to, ha ha.
As well, I don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but more info has been released about Don Carmody's attempt to make a third film happen:
Metroid is getting a kickstarted fanfilm and its legal, because the people doing it wont make any actual profit.
People could open a kickstarter, hire some camera men and a few stunt people, and pull off an hour long SH movie. The town i live in, Springport MI, would make the perfect setting. Look it up. Rent main street for a day and record some scenes there and in around the abandoned buildings. Too bad I do not have an HD camera, or else i would make a "Teaser" to show you what I mean.
No...don't even go there, just because some fans dislike the film adaptions or don't want a sequel do not make them not "true fans" there is no definition of "true fan" you're either a fan or you're not, preferences of certain things in the series do not differentiate to a "true fan".
It is absolutely 100% true that Bassett lied up a storm. He told multiple bald-faced lies about Revelation's connections to the first movie, including claiming that there would be no changes, which is obviously a steaming mound of horse shit. He does not deserve another chance to make a Silent Hill movie for many reasons, the most glaring of which is that he's a liar with no respect for the fans.
By that I meant "Bad fans", the ones who gave him negative comments on SH Revelation.
I really don't think Bassett did "that bad" on the movie! And yes I know him (I've seen his previouus films directed by him and he's one of my favorite Director's.) At least give him alittle credit for making Silent Hill: Revelation!
Hold on, HOLD ON! You're saying those who have a negative opinion are "bad fans"? Now I'm pretty sure everyone's going to have an opinion but for calling someone a "bad fan" for having a negative opinion over Bassett and his directing of Revelation is just purely childish, does that mean Alessa's a bad fan, other people on this wiki are bad fans because they didn't like the movie and gave negative comments? Might wanna watch your wording there.
And...you didn't get my point, when I said "Do you know him?" notice I said PERSONALLY meaning do you actually know the guy in real life...might wanna read what I put completely before commenting.
People are allowed to have whatever opinions they want without being subjected to insults and being looked down on. That kind of exclusionist attitude will not be tolerated. Understand that your personal opinions are not facts and that others have the right to disagree with you.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... now the "true/bad fan" thing was absolutely ridiculous. Some fans like only the games, some only the movies, some, the comics. Hell, I know some people who've just seen artwork from the games and are interested in it. A "true" Silent Hill fan isn't mandated to love the movies; rather, a genuine fan is intrigued by the overall concept of a complex idea, and isn't afraid to admit when those in control of it make a blimp. A fan of anything is meant to be critical, hence why some people dislike the movies. Me? No, I don't wish to see another SH film. Especially if it's a SH2 adaptation, considering I will literally throw an armada of vampire camels with whipping cactus tails at those in charge if that happens. ... Well that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point. But I would be damned if someone came up to me and said, "Oh well Ozz, that means you're not a real fan!" Time to find SH1's hammer when that day comes. Just to offer another example, plenty of fans went crazy when the metal band Metallica released "The Black Album" because it seemed "different", primarily just because they cut their damn hair. Some were just straight-up idiotic, pulling off the same "UGH I HATE THIS I'M DONE AND IF ANYONE LOVES THIS THEY CAN'T BE A TRUE FAN!!" crap, while some of those who also didn't appeal to it fairly were just "eh, I don't really like it, but to each their own." Just another example to further explicate the point of this "true" fan stuff.
As well, just because some people don't like Bassett doesn't make he or she a "bad" fan. Myself as an example again: I don't like what Bassett did with "Revelation". I don't know shit about the guy personally, other than, as Riley and Alessa said, he spoon-fed shit into the mouths of those eagerly awaiting the film. Then when it came out, wham. Countless aspects were skewed from his root statements. Lying about what he's doing with a movie isn't exactly encouraging, and back to the critical trait from what I mentioned before: Fans are going to mentally write down the flaws they see. And, truth is, he was not a truthful director. A person seeing that doesn't mean they're a shitty part of the fanbase.
Might I also add that the fact that you've seen his past films doesn't mean you know Bassett. Knowing someone is a personal encounter. Hell, I practically stalk Guy Cihi on YouTube, but nope, I don't know him.
Lastly, it seems to me this convo is about to go in a circle since your wording still claims that you believe this "I no like Bassett or the movie= bad fan" idea. In no way is Alessa a negative fan. She doesn't like the second movie. Okay, no problem. And besides, do you honestly believe that if she was just some shitty fan, that she would've been on this wiki for years and invested so much time in it?
Just an update to the original point of the thread: Since release, Revelation has made about $3.7 million in DVD sales in the US. This number does not include Blu-ray sales, but using the typical Blu-ray market share (~25%) one can estimate the real number is around $4.6 million.
For comparison, the first movie made $12.3 million on US DVD sales in its first week. Uwe Boll's BloodRayne movie made $7.6 million in US DVD sales in five weeks. Obviously sales of DVDs in general are down from 2006, but only by about 30-40%, which does not come close to accounting for this kind of drop.
The only good spin I could put on that is that it doesn't include foreign video sales (which are probably pretty good in places like Russia, Ukraine and Thailand where it did well in theatres) and there are newer markets like Video-on-Demand services where it can make up some additional revenue. Still though, even though I hated the movie, as a fan of the series the numbers are... well, discouraging.
Also, clearly this means we should convince Uwe Boll to direct the next one! (Sarcasm)
Just because Morgan is "usually the voice of reason" doesn't make it perfect, it has to be based on whether he could and would be willing to do the role I mean no offence to the guy but I doubt he's the right age to play someone like Blackwood.
Seeing as Morgan Freeman is a well known actor as well it would also depend on whether the movie budget would be able to supply enough to pay him.
Morgan isn't "usually" the voice of reason in most cases, that's really the role he plays seeing as he's in his seventies I doubt he'd be willing to throw himself across rooftops and the like. Despite me being a fan of Freeman I honestly think he wouldn't work well if he played Blackwood.
Personally I'd like to see a stand alone SH movie, something in the veins of SH2, however I'm not too positive it's possible (or worth as a film). In my opinion it's best that they'd rather focus more on the games.
With such crap they showed in "Revelation" it's no wonder the financial stats of it were low. I say no more films please. Or let someone else do it without f***ing up the whole thing. Don't get me wrong, the first SH film was quite good. It had some questionable changes and useless ideas, but also some redeeming factors. The second one just butchered one of my favourite SH games, SH3, contradicted the first film (which it's suppose to be connected to) and even contradicted itself countless times. Nuff said.
Spenced031 wrote: There's nothing absolutely wrong with the second installment, I like it just the way it is...most people didn't acccept the changes in the film, but I did! So please accept and deal with it...
If you like it, it's fine by me. You may have a different taste in films, but SH:R FAILS as an adaptation miserably and fails as a seprate creation as well. The first film made some stupid changes, but it was watchable and good, had some logic to it and some great ideas (the Otherworld transition) and visuals. Now, the sequel contradicts itself countless times, contradicts the source material, shallows the SH3 experience and contradicts the first SH movie, and it's a SEQUEL it's suppose to follow what was there quite... I don't know... closely maybe? I mean how can you make such a fantastic side character as Douglas Cartland such an obsolete and pointless character? How can you make such an disturbing sleaze ball as Vincent, a young, smooth-skinned love interest (of course with bullshit "I know you for a day I love you to the grave!"), how can you make Claudia a bullshit monster and have Piramid Head fight her at the end Power Rangers style, how can you shallow the revenge bit of SH3 with Harry being merely kidnapped instead of KILLED. This is inexcusable for me. Buuuut if you like it that way go ahead. I'd rather they make their own SH story separate from the games or not piss us off with shitty "adaptations".
Not to mention, that Revelations is a cheap blockbuster cash-in where they made it PG-16 so that kids can go watch it, it premiered in summer and it was in 3D. It just screams: "CASH-IN KATCHING!" I guess the visuals were ok (but still way worse than the first movie) and the actors did their best with the shit script they got?
Spenced, opinions about any installment in the series are going to vary. Please try not to be so gruff towards those who disagree with you.
As for SHR being a cash-in, I don't entirely agree. The producers certainly saw it as a cash-grab, but I don't believe the writer/director saw it that way. That doesn't mean I like SHR (I don't), but of all the mistakes Bassett made, I don't think only caring about cash was one of them.
I don't want to gruff towards no one, if it "sounded" like it, then I apologize.
Anyway, I value that everybody's got their different opinions on stuff, that's the beauty of this world, but I stand by my opinion. I think that the first four SH games deserve so much more from the filmmakers. Maybe the director didn't think about cash all the way, I don't know that, I never spoke to him, and he wouldn't tell even if I'd ask. So, if his intention was different, then what happened along the way? Why did we get a movie full of cheap jump-scares and with almost no depth, changing everything into almost a mockery? I want to find the reasoning behind it. The first one was ok, so they could either go for the second being better or worse. What happened that it got worse?
I was talking to Spenced031 when I mentioned being gruff.
The jump scares were, according to the writer/director, entirely the work of the producers. Granted, it's known that Bassett hasn't been exactly honest in his statements to fans, and he may just be pushing the blame off onto anyone but himself. There was a lot of depth to SHR, even if it was ridiculously poorly executed. The plot holes and short runtime suggest a lack of thought, but I think Bassett tried to do something rich, and failed horribly.
If they really wanna make money off of Silent Hill, you got to stick with the storyline thats how the games themselves sold was the storyline. the first movie was hit or miss on the storyline. they hit and missed where the mother is going after Cyerl/heather/alissa they hit the searching for her but they missed by having her mother (in the movie) go after her. remember the storyline in the game. Harry odopted Ceryl, he found her on the side of the road. so Konami needs to step in and write the script. There was no woman with Harry.
That's incorrect. The games sold by their atmosphere and horror type, not the story. If you talk to the casual gamers who have played this series, you will hear lots of commentary about how scary and atmospheric the games are, but very little about the story.
The main character's gender had no effect on the movie's sales because no one except the hardcore purists gives a shit what the lead's sex is.
Oh dear, I hate to just jump in inside the thread after a long pause of activation, but I only come by to say my opinions.
In my opinion, its not about "the movie would be nice if it stay to the game", they did not call it an adaptation without a reason. Not everyone could accept it, but Silent Hill isn't a type of game that you could just put straight into a movie without a proper change. This is because the original Silent Hill game have an eerie dark atmosphere, which is not something you could just copy and paste into a totally different concept such as movie.
If they want to make a third movie, they could make it an adaptation from the game (preferably, SH4....because its too risky to make an adaptation of SH2) or make a totally original storyline that connected with the first movie (yet they need to do something with SHR), both are fine, but thats not the whole idea.
AlessaGillespie is right, its not about the gender or anything. I personally dislike SHR because all the retcons and cheap gore, plus shallow story and cheesy casual talk between Heather and Vincent, but the first film in my opinion are glorious. Im not saying it was perfect, but I like it despite the major change of plotline. Gans manage to make something totally different than what the fan expected before the movie aired (which is both can be good or bad, depend on you), and in my opinion, I did not expect it and I LOVE IT. The point is, I enjoy the first movie, I want a third movie, but they need to do something with that tall glass of retcons and plothole. *ehem revelations ehem*
But this is just opinion, some other would maybe agree, some may rage because they like SHR, and some may never ever want to hear such thing as third movie, its all just a matter of opinions.
However, it would be awesome if they could just make an original movie that continue the first movie, and just call SHR as spin-off from the first movie, not a prequel. Yet again this is my personal opinion.
If the next film is an adaptation to SH2, I swear upon my grave that I will turn into a bloody bull out of its stall. When watching "Path of Darkness" as the first movie's extras, one of the people (can't place a name on who...) call the fanbase "very protective over their game," and I think almost all of us can agree on that, and when it comes to SH2, that game... just no. I will literally cry if they turn that into a movie. It's practically holy, at least to me. Not to mention, the film world already gave Pyramid Head another role, so it would hella screw things up to have him in SH2. Some games just can't be turned into movies, and SH2 is one of them for me.
Lastly, I do have to point out that I enjoy both the storyline of the games and the entirely unique atmosphere just about equally. It shows the sickness that plagues some of humanity, and also how you absolutely cannot run away from your past, lest you wish to always suffer from it. You have to face it and let it go eventually. Then on the other side of the coin, you have an atmosphere that no other game has: nightmarish, mysterious, breaks the boundaries of reality and fantasy, and deep down, is like a psychedelic mind-trip. No other game will ever hold a candle against what SH has in that sense, and whether you look at the front or back side of the coin, they still sell.
I can't lie that we are indeed very protective, but thats something expected. SH2 is just like what I said, is not a good choice for a movie, and personally, I would also go nuts. And yes, the role of Pyramid Head is now as "father figure" of Alessa, a guardian. So it would pretty much crash with the story....unless more retcons coming (OH GOD PLEASE NO)
I rather have them made SH4 as movie, since it was more 'separated' to the main series, which mean whatever the movie director plan, it won't be as messed up like SHR.
When talking about the atmosphere and feel of playing Silent Hill games, we all agree that the dark atmosphere of a psychological game will always get you unlike the others. Nightmarish and twisted, silence and gloomy, full of mystery and unknown event, that will drive you down to feel the fear by yourself. Guilty is one of the worst emotions human can feel, unlike hatred and anger, it haut you into a new level of doom, which is what Silent Hill has offered, and success greatly.