MovieChat Forums > Silent Hill: Revelation (2012) Discussion > Why did this movie change and ignore stu...

Why did this movie change and ignore stuff from the first movie?

posted 11 years ago by sockableclaw
21 replies | jump to latest

- The evil cult's beliefs, symbols, and motives are completely changed from the first film to match the game cult.

- The ending of the first movie is essentially ignored; Sharon and Dark Alessa are not merged, Rose is still in Silent Hill instead of at home, much (perhaps most) of the cult is still alive even though it was strongly implied they had all been massacred.

-The main character's age is changed (the movie is set years later, but her change in age from the first film does not match the time span between the movies).

So confused.

You must defeat Sheng Long to stand a chance.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JKristine35 11 years ago

The man who wrote and directed the second movie hated the first one, and felt it would be best to retcon as much of the original's plot as possible. He apparently didn't like the fans of the first film all that much either, since he openly lied about the retcons on his blog during production.

It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.

[–] LaraCroftLegacy 11 years ago

The man who wrote and directed the second movie hated the first one, and felt it would be best to retcon as much of the original's plot as possible. He apparently didn't like the fans of the first film all that much either, since he openly lied about the retcons on his blog during production.

Did Michael Bassett really say that?

D.H.F.F
Now is the end of days and I am the Reaper:Silent hill

[–] JKristine35 11 years ago

He stated on his blog that he wouldn't undo anything from the first movie. He also claimed that Revelation was a "sequel first, adaptation second", and that the Order and the Brethren were different cults.

It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.

[–] LaraCroftLegacy 11 years ago

Thanks JKristen35

I think reason why silent hill revelation flop was wasn't good as the first silent hill and took six years for a sequel to come and Michel Basset slaming the first silent hill movie and silent hill fans

D.H.F.F
Now is the end of days and I am the Reaper:Silent hill

[–] tbonesays 11 years ago

THe delay meant the original team wasn't committed to the project. Always a bad sign unless someone like Brian dePalma steps in.

[–] LaraCroftLegacy 11 years ago

THe delay meant the original team wasn't committed to the project. Always a bad sign unless someone like Brian dePalma steps in

Agree and it would have been interesting to see what Brian DePalma would do to silent hill movie

D.H.F.F
Now is the end of days and I am the Reaper:Silent hill

[–] eric_m_bi 11 years ago

He stated on his blog that he wouldn't undo anything from the first movie. He also claimed that Revelation was a "sequel first, adaptation second", and that the Order and the Brethren were different cults.

Really? I heard that rumor before but thought it was an unsubstantiated one, guess I was wrong. How would that work? According to the film, Heather says that the Order was the one that burned Alessa to release their God, but in the original film it's explicitly shown that it was the Brethren who burned her.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JKristine35 11 years ago

Yep, he did specifically state they were two separate cults. My guess is that it doesn't work at all, and that it has about as much truth to it as his claim to not change anything in the first film.

It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tbonesays 11 years ago

Nobody understood the plot of the first film without reading outside help. They tried to correct it by retconnating SHR back to the plot of the video games.

[–] Laurapoo92 11 years ago

In the end he made the mistake of tackling Heather's story! Which in a lot of fans minds is the best in the series and he changed too much for the film to be anything other than average
I would love the chance to make a Silent Hill movie, but instead of copying the games make my own story, every game has a different story, the only link together through the town, Walter Sullivan and the psychological problems characters have

Charlie:- The Evil Dead (2013)

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] genevaporter 11 years ago

Leonard Wells' ramblings were that there are multiple Silent Hills. The characters that died in the first SH movie are in another Silent Hill: either as a parallel universe or they were transported there after they died in the first one.
It might also explain why Rose was not there. She is still in the first Silent Hill.

[–] tbonesays 11 years ago

No one who died in the first film is present in SHR.

[–] probe_78 11 years ago

- The ending of the first movie is essentially ignored; Sharon and Dark Alessa are not merged, Rose is still in Silent Hill instead of at home, much (perhaps most) of the cult is still alive even though it was strongly implied they had all been massacred.

Because connectivity was not high at writers wish list.

If I recall correctly Rose never got out of Silent Hill in first movie. She and Sharon went to home, thought they got out of Silent Hill city, but it wasn't their real home. They still were not out of Silent hill.

-The main character's age is changed (the movie is set years later, but her change in age from the first film does not match the time span between the movies).

Because this is fiction, and waiting 10 (or what ever) more years before making the movie would not have been good for anything. This movie is very much based on game Silent Hill 3, which neither waited correct amount of time.

[–] JKristine35 11 years ago

That's not how movies work. There is no rule that says they must wait the same number of years as have passed in the story to make the movie. It would make zero difference to the production to put the story 8 years after the first film's events instead of 6, thus retaining Sharon's original age of 9, instead of bumping it to 11 for no reason. It's not like they used the same actress anyway (even though the original actress was 17 at the time).

It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.

[–] tbonesays 11 years ago

Good call on the spoilered parts

[–] SorroVV 8 years ago

It's easy - try not to give a fck!

Born2Burn

[–] Strazdas (2328) 5 years ago

Sharon and dark alessa never meged. Sharon and the demon that came to the aid of alessa summoned by her hatred merged.

Rose never left silent hill, as was evident by the fog accompanying them the whole trip back and the ending scene at the home.

The movie universe has a HUGE trouble being able to determine time spent and age. it seems that every character in the movies (both of them) ages slower than in reality.