"Silent Hill" trailer released on Yahoo Movies

Travis Maynard · January 21st, 2006, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Martens

As well you shouldn't, seeing as there are no zombies in Silent Hill; a zombie is, in the classic--and as far as I know, only--definition, an undead human. Sometimes you can extend this to animals, as well, but it's mostly people we're talking about. The creatures inhabiting Silent Hill are humanoid at best, but are hardly normal, everyday people who have risen from the grave to eat brains. They are, depending on which theory you subscribe to (I've forgotten what the official word from the developers is), either simple demons straight from the great down-under, or figments of the characters' imaginations, custom formed for each individual who visits the town, and based on their own personal fears, meant to torment them in some way. Neither of those counts as "zombie" by my reckoning.

Nothing personal, of course, I'm just anal about my Silent Hill. ;)

I know. We were on the subject of where we lived and Andy mentioned zombies in his neck of the woods. I was simply replying saying I never see zombies in my area and to poke some fun at hillbillies. No need to be anal ;)

Robert Martens · January 21st, 2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith Loh

Just keep in mind that this board has quite a few people who work in film who are based in other countries, including Canada.

Oh, I do realize that, and I should explain myself, it's hardly a diatribe against Canadians, or any other country for that matter.

It's not that Canadians do worse work than we do, or any other such nonsense. If I were Canadian, and the work were there, I'd take the opportunity just like you guys. I cannot, should not, and do not blame you for doing so.

The problem I have (and I recognize I haven't got such enormous perspective on this topic, but bear with me) is with those who make the bottom-line money decisions; the bean counters, if you will. To shoot a film in, say, Toronto that takes place in New York just because you want to spend less, and not because you really need to, is despicable to me. You can afford to pay New York workers, then in my mind you owe it to them to do so. My complaint's not about Canada, it's about moving around from place to place just to save money. Yeah, I can accept that in many instances the exchange rate and tax incentives allow a better film to be made, but to suggest that this is their primary motivation in most situations? That work (film for one, but also tech support, manufacturing, etc.) is being sent to other countries because the companies truly care about the people who work there, and want to bolster their economies? I can't even begin to believe that's true.

I'd say the same no matter what country I lived in: worry about your own people first. It would strike me that in this country, and yours as well (along with a host of others), it's even worse: as large, powerful nations, we're in a position to help the less fortunate, but who helps us? There are only so many Japanese car companies out there, and they can't employ ALL of us.

Bottom line: if our businesses don't help us first and foremost, who will?

Addendum: Oh, crap, I just saw something ELSE that came out wrong when I typed it: Keith, the comment about "miserable cheapskates" was in reference to what I speak of in this post, but when I said that the shooting in Canada was "unfortunate", I was talking about James and Travis having said they were from West Virginia. Not that there's anything wrong with THAT, mind you, I just meant to point out that while the film is set there, it wasn't filmed there (perhaps they didn't know, I figured)...I wasn't implying that Canada is a bad place to shoot stuff.

Robert Martens · January 21st, 2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Maynard

I was simply replying saying I never see zombies in my area and to poke some fun at hillbillies. No need to be anal ;)

Ah, I see, my mistake. Poking fun at hillbillies is fine by me, go right ahead!

Andy Graham · January 21st, 2006, 08:22 PM

Travis is right man I only ment the drunks you see wandering the streets which every major city has, We know that they are not zombies in silent hill just havin some fun.

My personal opinion is that there is far too much stress in the film industry .... presure from the studio the deadline falling behind effects not what you wanted etc. Fun in this game is a big thing for me even at the highest level if it ever comes to that. But if it doesn't i'll still love folks films who do make it.

Relax and you'll make better films is what I say

Andy

Robert Martens · January 21st, 2006, 08:35 PM

I'm trying my best to be the same way; there's too much stress in life, period, and I'm doing what I can to just relax and enjoy myself. My comments so far, both the zombie thing and the Canada remarks, were made in passing more as simple opinions, not angry hate-filled rants. I'm not looking to stir things up, or get stressed out about this stuff, only to offer my thoughts. It's just that tact is not one of my strong points. :)

Andy Graham · January 21st, 2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Martens

. I'm among friends here . ;)

Your right man, we are all Friends... meaning we all know a simple thing to the common eye is a whole lotta orginizasion skill and team work. .I learned you have to trust your peers and any experience weather it be good or bad its somethin you didn't know before

Friendship is productive

Andy

Keith Loh · January 22nd, 2006, 01:27 PM

Robert, I must have missed your response in the thread churn so let me start off by saying that I wasn't winding up to jump on you or be ultra defensive about the Canadian film industry. I do understand your point of view. Of course it would be ideal that a film production is shot on the location it is fictionally set in. Until we see the film we won't know how much of a success that decision is.

Many other factors could have led the production to be located somewhere else including the dollar (which incidentally has been creeping up so in five years that may not be a factor). Professionalism of the crews. Local regulations. Availability of locations. Scheduling. A tax regime.

I had this same discussion over the film "Cold Mountain", the civil war film which was shot mostly in Eastern Europe. Mingella said two of his reasons for shooting in Europe were that the existing historical locations were either too park-like or had been deforested. A second reason was that the extras in Hungary (or wherever that was) resembled more closely the half-starved, unhealthy specimens of human beings who would have been closer to the civil war recruits in history.

California and Hollywood backlots have served to stand in for Egypt, Ancient Rome, the plains of Mongolia, the South Pacific, outer space and yes, even Canada. For reasons of economy or convenience, Hollywood has chosen in the past to make the world into its backlot, with varying success. Now the world is its backlot.

Let's face another fact. Talent is international. Where are you going to draw the line? All American crew including the writer, director and stars? Of course in the golden age of Hollywood much of the talent came from other countries, from England, Canada, Germany. And being a foreigner has never been an obstacle to getting work in Hollywood when the talent and contacts count. Is the actress in "Silent Hill" herself a Virginian? Why not? In "Cold Mountain" was Renee Zelwegger a genuine hillbilly? No, of course not. Did the writer and production designer actually experience the civil war? No. Another example. Zhang Yimou's "Hero". Starring Chinese actors, funded by Hong Kong, France and Japan, with an Australian cinematographer with costume design by a Japanese. Yimou could afford the best and he got the best.

American films have benefited from foreign financing, not to mention how many studios are actually partly or wholly owned by international funds. American films have benefited most obviously in foreign distribution. Somehow it's okay for us to line up and watch a Hollywood film, contributing to the California economy, but not help make them.

Let me speak even more frankly. If you were to draw a line there, what about here. Why should we in DVInfo.net be giving free advice to people in other countries who could end up taking work away from us? Every tip you give in this forum is just an advantage foreigners could use on you, isn't that so?

Robert Martens · January 22nd, 2006, 04:25 PM

Yeah, I can understand--and get behind--all of the points you make, 'specially that last one. My worry is, I must learn to accept, one of principle and ideal, not of real world and practicality. There are many other factors at play that I had never even considered, and perhaps I was just approaching things from the wrong angle. I still think that one should endeavor to do things the way I described them; J.K. Rowling wanted only British actors to play the parts in the Harry Potter films, and I can see where she's coming from. Some were upset at the thought of Americans playing lead roles in the Lord of the Rings, and I don't completely disagree. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out, but I'd think the least you could do is try.

And I can't help shake the feeling that it's not usually about using the best talent or the most available/appropriate locations, but instead simply to save money. Yes, talent is international, and yes, the global economy is helped by trade in these ways, I only fear that "global economy" is a buzzword (or buzzphrase, more correctly) tossed around by those in charge as a convenient excuse for shaving a few more bucks off the budget. I'm not a "save money for saving money's sake" kinda guy, and I don't particularly appreciate those who are, especially when people's jobs (any people's jobs) are directly affected by their decisions.

Andy Graham · January 22nd, 2006, 06:14 PM

I can uderstand your point about the money thing Robert but you have to remember (correct me if my hollywood history is off) that in the 70's hollywood fell apart and alot of the major studios were being bought over by large beverage companies and other companies who have nothing to do with making films. This ment you have a bunch of suits in it for the money and doing their risk vs cost benefit analysis on everything, they had no knowlage or love for the art of filmmaking .

I was watching the special features on the Alien resurection dvd and Jean-Pierre Jeunet was saying sometimes you have to protect the studios from themselves . They were telling him not to build certain sets because of budgetry reasons but he had them built behind their backs anyway because they don't have the vision or imagination.

I'm no expert on the hollywood machine but from what i can gather from watching documentaries and dvd special features it seems the relationship between the filmmakers and the executives is shaky at best but they know that without one the other is nothing and the filmmakers end up dancing to the studios tune because ultimately they are stumping up the cash. The studios are just loansharks ready to break your legs if you mess it up!.

Keith Loh · January 23rd, 2006, 01:02 PM

Robert, in the ideal world there would be no barriers to employment, no duties, no work visas. We could work wherever and cross borders to work on projects we want to work on and pay taxes in the locations we work in. Producers would employ the best available at the time. To me, if you have global capital freedom (i.e. studios can decide to shoot anywhere they want) there should also be free movement of labour. Then we could get beyond what is really a false conflict that pits us against each other.

Robert Martens · January 23rd, 2006, 01:09 PM

I really don't think you and I disagree at this point; everything you've said so far makes sense, and I want you to know that I can see what you mean, and that I'm not looking to bash "foreigners" because "dey tuk ar jerbs!"

All I'm saying is that if there IS free movement of labor, it should be based on who the people are, what kind of work they do, and what they have to offer your production, not how much they charge, and what it does to your profits.

They should be choosing people from Canada, America, Australia, or anywhere else based on the people, not what the people charge.

January 21st, 2006, 08:22 PM	#19
Andy Graham Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Lanark,Scotland Posts: 736	Travis is right man I only ment the drunks you see wandering the streets which every major city has, We know that they are not zombies in silent hill just havin some fun. My personal opinion is that there is far too much stress in the film industry .... presure from the studio the deadline falling behind effects not what you wanted etc. Fun in this game is a big thing for me even at the highest level if it ever comes to that. But if it doesn't i'll still love folks films who do make it. Relax and you'll make better films is what I say Andy __________________ Actor: "where would that light be coming from?" DP: "same place as the music" -Andrew Lesnie-

January 22nd, 2006, 01:27 PM	#22
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Robert, I must have missed your response in the thread churn so let me start off by saying that I wasn't winding up to jump on you or be ultra defensive about the Canadian film industry. I do understand your point of view. Of course it would be ideal that a film production is shot on the location it is fictionally set in. Until we see the film we won't know how much of a success that decision is. Many other factors could have led the production to be located somewhere else including the dollar (which incidentally has been creeping up so in five years that may not be a factor). Professionalism of the crews. Local regulations. Availability of locations. Scheduling. A tax regime. I had this same discussion over the film "Cold Mountain", the civil war film which was shot mostly in Eastern Europe. Mingella said two of his reasons for shooting in Europe were that the existing historical locations were either too park-like or had been deforested. A second reason was that the extras in Hungary (or wherever that was) resembled more closely the half-starved, unhealthy specimens of human beings who would have been closer to the civil war recruits in history. California and Hollywood backlots have served to stand in for Egypt, Ancient Rome, the plains of Mongolia, the South Pacific, outer space and yes, even Canada. For reasons of economy or convenience, Hollywood has chosen in the past to make the world into its backlot, with varying success. Now the world is its backlot. Let's face another fact. Talent is international. Where are you going to draw the line? All American crew including the writer, director and stars? Of course in the golden age of Hollywood much of the talent came from other countries, from England, Canada, Germany. And being a foreigner has never been an obstacle to getting work in Hollywood when the talent and contacts count. Is the actress in "Silent Hill" herself a Virginian? Why not? In "Cold Mountain" was Renee Zelwegger a genuine hillbilly? No, of course not. Did the writer and production designer actually experience the civil war? No. Another example. Zhang Yimou's "Hero". Starring Chinese actors, funded by Hong Kong, France and Japan, with an Australian cinematographer with costume design by a Japanese. Yimou could afford the best and he got the best. American films have benefited from foreign financing, not to mention how many studios are actually partly or wholly owned by international funds. American films have benefited most obviously in foreign distribution. Somehow it's okay for us to line up and watch a Hollywood film, contributing to the California economy, but not help make them. Let me speak even more frankly. If you were to draw a line there, what about here. Why should we in DVInfo.net be giving free advice to people in other countries who could end up taking work away from us? Every tip you give in this forum is just an advantage foreigners could use on you, isn't that so? __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

January 22nd, 2006, 06:14 PM	#24
Andy Graham Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Lanark,Scotland Posts: 736	I can uderstand your point about the money thing Robert but you have to remember (correct me if my hollywood history is off) that in the 70's hollywood fell apart and alot of the major studios were being bought over by large beverage companies and other companies who have nothing to do with making films. This ment you have a bunch of suits in it for the money and doing their risk vs cost benefit analysis on everything, they had no knowlage or love for the art of filmmaking . I was watching the special features on the Alien resurection dvd and Jean-Pierre Jeunet was saying sometimes you have to protect the studios from themselves . They were telling him not to build certain sets because of budgetry reasons but he had them built behind their backs anyway because they don't have the vision or imagination. I'm no expert on the hollywood machine but from what i can gather from watching documentaries and dvd special features it seems the relationship between the filmmakers and the executives is shaky at best but they know that without one the other is nothing and the filmmakers end up dancing to the studios tune because ultimately they are stumping up the cash. The studios are just loansharks ready to break your legs if you mess it up!. __________________ Actor: "where would that light be coming from?" DP: "same place as the music" -Andrew Lesnie-

January 23rd, 2006, 01:02 PM	#25
Keith Loh Air China Pilot Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Posts: 2,389	Robert, in the ideal world there would be no barriers to employment, no duties, no work visas. We could work wherever and cross borders to work on projects we want to work on and pay taxes in the locations we work in. Producers would employ the best available at the time. To me, if you have global capital freedom (i.e. studios can decide to shoot anywhere they want) there should also be free movement of labour. Then we could get beyond what is really a false conflict that pits us against each other. __________________ -- Visit http://www.KeithLoh.com \| stuff about living in Vancouver \| My Flickr photo gallery

January 21st, 2006, 08:35 PM	#20
Robert Martens Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Miller Place, NY Posts: 820	I'm trying my best to be the same way; there's too much stress in life, period, and I'm doing what I can to just relax and enjoy myself. My comments so far, both the zombie thing and the Canada remarks, were made in passing more as simple opinions, not angry hate-filled rants. I'm not looking to stir things up, or get stressed out about this stuff, only to offer my thoughts. It's just that tact is not one of my strong points. :)

January 22nd, 2006, 04:25 PM	#23
Robert Martens Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Miller Place, NY Posts: 820	Yeah, I can understand--and get behind--all of the points you make, 'specially that last one. My worry is, I must learn to accept, one of principle and ideal, not of real world and practicality. There are many other factors at play that I had never even considered, and perhaps I was just approaching things from the wrong angle. I still think that one should endeavor to do things the way I described them; J.K. Rowling wanted only British actors to play the parts in the Harry Potter films, and I can see where she's coming from. Some were upset at the thought of Americans playing lead roles in the Lord of the Rings, and I don't completely disagree. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out, but I'd think the least you could do is try. And I can't help shake the feeling that it's not usually about using the best talent or the most available/appropriate locations, but instead simply to save money. Yes, talent is international, and yes, the global economy is helped by trade in these ways, I only fear that "global economy" is a buzzword (or buzzphrase, more correctly) tossed around by those in charge as a convenient excuse for shaving a few more bucks off the budget. I'm not a "save money for saving money's sake" kinda guy, and I don't particularly appreciate those who are, especially when people's jobs (any people's jobs) are directly affected by their decisions.

January 23rd, 2006, 01:09 PM	#26
Robert Martens Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Miller Place, NY Posts: 820	I really don't think you and I disagree at this point; everything you've said so far makes sense, and I want you to know that I can see what you mean, and that I'm not looking to bash "foreigners" because "dey tuk ar jerbs!" All I'm saying is that if there IS free movement of labor, it should be based on who the people are, what kind of work they do, and what they have to offer your production, not how much they charge, and what it does to your profits. They should be choosing people from Canada, America, Australia, or anywhere else based on the people, not what the people charge.