Talk:Silent Hill (film)

Plot "synopsis" too long
The plot section here is about three times longer than that for Citizen Kane, twice that of Casablanca. I've seen shorter movie novelizations. In addition, it's riddled with speculation, some of it directly contradicted by the film, and all of it 'Original Research' or interpretation. I understand how much everyone might want to keep their favorite details in their, but would anyone strenuously object to me taking a crack at cutting that sucker down, oh, about half? And removing the editorial asides and interpretation? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as you're not adding speculation of your own, take it to the woodchipper. 24.222.148.44 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I promise. In I go... 71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Years later it is still flagged as excessive and needs a major trimming. This is one of the longest plot "synopses" I've ever seen at WP (and I've been here since 2005). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Silent Hill 2 movie is cancelled?
According to certain websites e thSilent Hill 2 Movie Is Cancelled?. not my opinion by thought i would give the idea out there that this movie might not make to the cinema. http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_15002.html  --Chaos2501 (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of websites say a lot of things. AlessaGillespie (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Differences between movie and at ANY point any of the games
Why is there no "differences" section. This article perscribes as if it has relation, in any way, to the games. It does not. It completely changes, into a world of its own, the entire plot at every point from every single game. To continue to push this movie as if it has anything at all to do with the games are blatant lies. 119.11.15.173 (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Harlequin
 * Those sections are often filled up with original research and that goes against WP:OR. If you can find good cited information from a reliable source, please feel free to add it to this article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is utterly ridiculous.


 * In the game, the protagonist must find his missing daughter. In the movie, the protagonist must find her missing daughter.
 * In the game, the protagonist must learn the story of Alessa to find his child. In the movie, the protagonist must learn the story of Alessa to find her child.
 * In the game, the protagonist finds himself in Silent Hill after Alessa causes him to crash his car. In the movie, the protagonist finds herself in Silent Hill after Alessa causes her to crash her car.
 * In the game, the protagonist's adoptive daughter is a doppelganger of Alessa containing part of her soul. In the movie, the protagonist's adoptive daughter is a doppelganger of Alessa containing part of her soul.
 * In the game, the protagonist takes home a rebirth of Alessa after his stay in Silent Hill. In the movie, the protagonist takes home a rebirth of Alessa after her stay in Silent Hill.
 * In the game, Alessa is burned alive by a religious cult. In the movie, Alessa is burned alive by a religious cult.

I could post more, but I think I've already proven that it's beyond silly to claim that not a single plot point of the movie matches any of the games. AlessaGillespie (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why not list the differences in creatures or of the cult? Example, the cult of the film is witch-burners; the original game is trying to revive God. The intent of Alessa's burning, therefore, is DIFFERENT. Yes, you are correct that the basic premise of the film and the game are the same, but plenty of details are changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Berkshire (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was all the same. All I did was point out that it's ridiculous to claim the film and game had no similarities whatsoever. AlessaGillespie (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Alessa here and also Andrzej, surely a list of differences would be original research. Dark verdant (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is not original research to say one thing about the video game and one thing about its film adaptation. If we drew conclusions from mentioning both items such as assuming that a character was removed to simplify the story, that would be original research.  However, identifying differences in general is considered indiscriminate because in the adaptation process of any source material, many changes are made.  It's best to limit differences to those signified by secondary sources, especially if there is an explanation for the change from the filmmakers or a reaction to the change from critics.  See MOS:FILM for more on this. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don´t forget:
 * In the game, the Silent Hill monsters are based out of the protagonist worst fears which is based of their past. In the movie, the monsters are Alessas creations only, while in reality the monsters have a different basing that differs from protagonist to protagonist, for example; the Dark Nurses didn´t get all over sexualized until SH2, based on James sexuall fantasies, same as for Travis Grady.
 * In the game, if their was any slaughter to be made that role was filled by The Butcher (SH:Origins) until he was killed by Travis Grady. Red Pyramid or Pyramid Head whatever, did not appaer until James Sunderland arrived at Silent Hill, and Pyramid Head was based out of James guilt and a secret wish to be punished... but then again reference was made in Origins about Pyramid Head......
 * In the game, Dhalia was directly responible for the rituals that took place in Silent Hill, sacrificing her daughter willingly. In the movie, Dhalia is regreting her sins, and has barley nothing to do with the events in Silent Hill.
 * In the game, cult are a bunch of worshippers for a god wich requires sacrifice to revive and summon it to the world(also it looks ALOT like a demon or the Devil). In the movie, the cult are a bunch of people with extreme christian belifs, burning innocent people.
 * -J

[Outdent.] It's mostly original research and outright trivia. A single, clean paragraph that summarizes (that does not mean "goes into excruciating fanwankery for 100 sentences") the principal differences is a plausible part of the article, if it can be sourced. Various reviews (both filmic and gamer) will mention differences, and can be used as sources. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this; MOS:FILM explains this in depth. Apt Pupil (film) is a possible example of where a "Differences" section could work, using reliable sources and not just editorial observations. Erik (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty redundant actually thinking we cannot create a differences section because "liek you haves no sources!". We have a variety of articles ON the Silent Hill games, the sources are already provided. It's petty, and frankly ridiculous, to play off the movie as if it was the same as the games. Especially the second poster flat out stating they are the same because of a terribly poor attempt, using simplified fallacious "things in the film" (which can be said for a whole bunch of other films as well, making his point moot) to compare the games and the movie.

Strangely enough he ignored the PLOT differences, including, but not specific to, the entire creation of the town. Main characters. What caused Silent Hill. Monsters. Settings.

It's a STORY BASED game, which some of the pitiful apologists don't seem to grasp when they say how similar the movie and games are. Oooh "it has pyramid head, the games had pyramid head! totally the same!" doesn't really cut it when it's a STORY based game. Hmm, so I think I, along with a few editors I know, will be re-editing the article to include the section, fully sourced (in more detail than so many of you apologists think you have about the games), so as to end those biased editors can't keep playing off this movie as if it had anything to do with the games. Especially when you start to sound like the paid forum monkeys that simply SPAM good sites like ours with flat out lies so as to promote the movie. 203.59.189.173 (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * Movies often make changes to the source materials story, doesn't mean that we need to fill the article with needless WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TRIV. magnius (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be on the Lawnmower Man (film) article trying to make up more ridiculous excuses as to how it's "exactly like the book"?

Editors are doing their jobs and providing the differences. Main, major plot points that are completely changed or disregarded are not "needless fancruft" or whatever apologist dribble you want to make up. Try harder next time. 124.169.97.146 (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane
 * Editors are doing original research and synthesis which is not "their job". - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors are doing original research and synthesis which is not "their job". - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There could always be an addition of Geek Reception, mostly online reviews of gamers who will litterally show the differences. Many can be found on TGWTG.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.123.254 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Some people need to get a life. Noboby involved into the movie ever claimed that the Silent Hill movie was a complete copy of the game. Really, guys, it would have been boring if they'd have tried that. There a a lot of similarities, just the story behind it differs a bit. But who cares? It's still a great movie and one of the best adaptions I've seen so far. (SS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.158.23.2 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tanya Allen
What character Tanya Allen (a main cast member according to the infobox) plays needs to be mentioned at least briefly in the plot synopsis (which otherwise needs a boatload of trimming) and explained in the cast section. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images
The non-free images in the article body do not belong per WP:NFC and WP:FILMNFI. Non-free images cannot be used for the plot summary because there is no contextual significance provided. Anyone would be able to argue, "The film has this scene, and the screenshot shows this scene." That's not enough; purpose needs to be significant, like for the images at American Beauty (film) and Changeling (film). In addition, there is no significance in showing an uninformative image of a living actor in her role. Erik (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalized
Just below the cast section someone wrote "then they dicks got cut off". I don't want to mess the article up so maybe someone who knows what he's doing and is a little less childish than whoever wrote that can fix it. :) --62.99.207.37 (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lovecraftian
I am not the anonymous editor who posted this reference, nor I do necessarily support the reference. However, please discuss it here before the 3RR. I had never heard of the "Lovecraftian" horror genre or form before, but it does seem to fit the Silent Hill franchise (it takes an opposite approach to fright as, say Resident Evil). I would mildly support using the word somewhere else in the article, though. Not certain entirely....Obamafan70 (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's original research unless I'm forgetting something explicitly stated in the film.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  15:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't really care, and I'm not the original poster. But what's the argument that it's original research? It seems more like a singular description which fits the franchise's modus operandi pretty well. I also want to point out an orthogonal issue is that most of literature is not material fact and probably not sourced.

I think it's admirable that there are so many editors here trying to keep this article sound, but it's not immediately clear this is original research. Do you have an argument from the WP policies? Obamafan70 (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless a reliable source (say, a notable movie review) makes the comparison or a line of dialogue/shot in movie (say, a shot of a book with Lovecraft's name on it) in the movie addresses it, it is original research because it is viewer interpretation to make the comparison. I mean, I see the interpretation myself, but I can't recall a single frame or line in the movie that noted the idea.  I actually just did a quick search for reviews mentioning it (because it is interesting) and I found nothing we could use.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  16:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your position, as well as why original research is problematic. Wikipedia has made the assessment that even reasonable interpretations that may benefit the reader are to be excluded unless sourced.

However, and this is interesting....I did just find a good source for the Lovecraft mention. In fact, it's an academic article (the highest quality source) from a university in England. http://www.gamestudies.org/0301/carr/

So, I think that settles the matter, and we can revert to the odd mention of Lovecraft...a bizarre twist in this discussion. And I had never even heard of the guy before! Obamafan70 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, it would be interesting to see what Lexus Nexus picks up. I found that on maybe the 4th page of a Google search with quotation marks and advanced options. Obamafan70 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I also just found a director's interview (the director from Silent Hill the movie) and there are mentions from users about Lovecraft. I don't think that counts, though, so it shouldn't be added as a reference. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For me the gamestudies link might work; I've used sourced from academic thesis type things like that for other stuff. We may want to double check with the Reliable Sources people (I think it's a noticeboard...don't quote me on that).  Since the author of that project is referring to the game and not the film I'm not sure it's ideal for this article.  If it is (or if we were to go and use it on the game article instead) it might be better to have it in the Reception section since it's more of an observation about the material than something put forth in the story itself.  If you see what I mean.  Fascinating read though; good find.


 * In the director's interview; was it a chat where he was responding to questions about the Lovecraft idea? I would think we could use it if it was.  My interpretation of how you wrote it was that it was just user comments on the post that includes the interview, though.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry...not sure I made this clear enough or not, but by academic source, I mean the author of the Game Studies piece is a Professor of Game Stadies at the University of London, which is one of the top universities in the world. You may be right that this isn't ideal for this particular article (again. I am not the origin of this post). However, Dr. Carr uses the word "film" 5 times in the article, so it's clear that she views "CGI flashbacks" as film....but you're right -- it may not be ideal.

In the director's interview, he makes numerous references to the style of Lovecraft horror used, but he doesn't say it directly. A bunch of message board comments then chimed in with the words. I've seen this on a bunch of film and videogame message boards, but typically those don't count for reliable sources (even if there are 20 of them). I'll leave it up to the discretion of other WP editors to see if this should be moved, deleted, or kept. It seems a minor issue at this point.Obamafan70 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll keep digging and see if I can find something we can use; it really is a nice idea for the Reception section since so many people who have seen the movie (and played the game) have brought it up. If I haven't found anything in a week or so, I'll grab the text and throw it in one of my sandboxes so we have it for future use.  In the meantime, it might be something to use over on the article for the game.  I don't touch a lot of game articles but I believe they have reception sections as well.   Millahnna (mouse)  talk  21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Where in the academic article is Lovecraft mentioned? I've been skimming through it and found nothing relevant. Robert Berkshire (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Robert, the entire article is about the Lovecraftian affect. The author's name (H.P. Lovecraft) is mentioned in the bottom under citations and a brief discussion about similar horror film affect as embodied in H.P. Lovecraft works. There are a lot of references to Lovecraft in associated commentary about Silent Hill, but it's hard (on a cursory search) to find something that goes beyond the stuff found in message boards, newspaper comments, etc.. In the future, you can use "CTRL + F" to find things in articles quite easily or do a google search and the use "cached" option. Obamafan70 (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification it's under "Notes"....there are a lot of good academic comments here, which seem ripe for the picking if you give the author credit. Here's another good tidbit from Dr. Carr:
 * "[6] Freud associates the reassuring double, the "assurance of immortality" (1997) with narcissism. Kristeva (1989) has described the narcissist as a subject expelled from the realm of the maternal but resisting the Oedipal orders, or "law" on offer.  This yearning (for) an alternative state chimes with the inventive tendencies of Fantasy in general...." 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamafan70 (talk • contribs)


 * Only hit on Lovecraft using Ctrl + F is as follows: "[2] Computer RPGs have adopted live-action RPGs rules, but the shift from tabletop to computer changes the game experience completely. Live action RPGs already have a successful and scare-inducing horror sub-genre of their own. Readers of Valkyrie; The Independent Role Playing Game Magazine voted Call of Cthulhu (Wizards of the Coast) their favourite game, and that's a game based on the horror novels of H.P Lovecraft  (issue 22 page 12)"  This doesn't strike me as relevant, and if it's so difficult to find anything outside of messageboards, that's probably because it's original research. Robert Berkshire (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, I'm not the original poster and I firmly believe you are acting in good faith here. Though, I think the Lovecraft reference is still perfectly fine here and doesn't constitute original research. Here's another another interesting tidbit--
 * http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0304521/
 * That's the IMDB link to Christopher Gans, the director of the film. He directed and released a film in the USA called H.P. Lovecraft's Necronomicon, Book of the Dead

If you want I can continue to try and find other fascinating tidbits, but I think it's pretty clear that we can establish a link here. If not, I'll see what else I can find; it seems pretty interesting and I had never heard of Lovecraft before.Obamafan70 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.P._Lovecraft%27s:_Necronomicon .... kinda makes me feel dumb right now. lol Obamafan70 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpretation section
I deleted an entire section (two paragraphs) called "Interpretation". The (anonymous) user appears to be acting in good faith with his interpretation, but probably doesn't understand that Wikipedia isn't a message board; it's an encyclopedia. There are no citations, and so it's entirely clear that this interpretation isn't backed in any legitimate scholarship. As such, it's original research. If this user feels that this is important information, he/she should publish it somewhere, and then we can consider bringing it back under a different section.Obamafan70 (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Errors and omissions in the Plot section
Even though the Plot section is very long, as already noticed, there are some details missing. First of all, the Sharon-alike with whom Rose talks at the end isn't quite what is described - "goodness took Sharon's likeness and led Rose through her journey". First of all, Rose goes to visit "the demon" and finds her, while Christabella told her before that "demon hides behind the face of a child" (or something like that). And finally, when Rose asks her who is she, she told she has "many names" - which can mean only one thing, that she is indeed Satan, because the Devil is often described as one with many names. For what I understood, Sharon is actually "the manifestation of Alessa's innocence", not the duplicate which indeed led Rose through her journey (not one person for both statements, but two different ones). I must admit this part about what exactly is Sharon is confusing to me, especially because it is not clearly stated who are her parents. Is Alessa her mother? She was badly burned, so couldn't normally bear a child, but it could be possible Sharon is a child of Alessa and Satan, which would be a mystical occurence so not limited by the above mentioned. Anyway, it is not clearly stated in the film, and the closest thing to explanation was that she was indeed Alessa's "good part".

The whole Plot section could indeed take some rewriting, so I guess I'm going to mark it accordingly. I hope someone could clarify the confusing details I've mentioned above and merge it into the section in accordance to the established facts instead of speculation... Arny (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the Plot section, the twist at the end of the movie isn't fully gone into. Is this deliberate, or is it okay to add that info? Listener Sheogorath (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We cannot be downright sure what exactly happens at the end, as neither the film nor any official source explicitly explain the end. There is a clash of opinions here, as many theories float around; for example, one repeatedly added in the "Plot" section by various people is that Rose and Sharon remain in the alternate dimension, but since it cannot be supported by the film itself or anything official, it is blatant original research. Hula Hup (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to "Errors and Omissions"
Of more importance is the definition and nature of Christabel's cult. It seems they are indeed Satanists who deny what they are and use a psychological inversion, believing themselves to be apocalyptic Christians (same as-allegedly-the Puritans during the hysteria of the Salem witch trials, though neither they, nor the Johnathan Winthrop congregation preached an Armageddon doctrine. In this light, it seems the "many-named" demon could not touch them because they simply did not name themselves nor sincerely believed to be the evil ones; but used rage-ridden transference against any true innocent as the targeted evil (thereby over-feating even the Devil in deceit and destruction. Can it be said that the cult was able to-albeit, with limits and temporarily-able to co-opt the devil's power and displace him in his own damnable realm? Yes, this seems as much Danteques as it does "Lovecraftian". --67.86.98.26 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Veryverser Please excuse me. I meant to say that it was the subversive, anti-evangelical preachings of JOHNATHAN EDWARDS, and not Winthrop who preached a blasphemous, apocalyptic doctrine. --67.86.111.161 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)--184.207.6.174 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Veryverser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.121.237.88 (talk)

That promo poster looks like it was photoshopped by a thirteen year old
That is all. Hexrei2 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken point in plot summary
Rose and the cop don't team up after the arrest, Rose runs off and is the only one of the two seen until at the school, after seeing Pyramid Head for the first time and the cut-scenes to Christopher. Someone fix, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.169.118 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

time-line added
as the film has a pre-history to it ive added in as it gives it some depth - its not a plot. there are no onscreen dates for me to use though, so i'l have to assume the adult alessa is a future self. ive also connected up of what was shown onscreen. i'd prefer it the script writer explained more like what was the armless creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC) VC 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)

Boy, Am I Ever Remiss ...
Uh, so sorry that I did not respond to "Arny"'s query directly and sooner. His confusion is that simply he's not familiar with classical references in myth and horror genre. Rose da Silva's adopted daughter Sharon da Silva is obviously a "changeling" (a demon "doppelganger" culled from the remains of Alessa's destroyed "innocence", sent to replace the absent, or alleged "dead" original personage). The "many-named demon" that led both Rose and police Sgt.Cybil Bennet on its merry chase simply disguised itself as Sharon to facilitate its ends. The prostrated, eternally immolated original Alessa, who has aged since her attack was not allowed to die by the demon, in keeping with the Faustian promise to send her tormentors to Hell, was used by the latter as both a template for the "soulless" changeling Sharon; its own, deceptive image as "Sharon", and the "generator" for the "limbo" dimension of Silent Hill. In other words, "Silent Hill" was forged as a hellish "holding station" of Alessa rage-filled wish-fulfillment until the Devil could forcibly resolve the conundrum of the cultists' power to debilitate it. That solution was, again, as the Demon revealed was Rose's own choice to love unconditionally what she thought was the abandoned little girl she and her husband adopted. The Demon's solution was simply to have Rose choose again, to sacrifice anything to save her child. This act of unsullied, selfless humanity and loving sacrifice was the antithetical power the Demon needed to circumvent the cultists' spiritual barrier and enter their sanctuary. On this last point, the theme should be obvious to all: The vampire's prohibition from entering a mortal abode without being invited; the Devil not able to influence a mortal without a collusive "pact" of some sort. The evil intent of any entity to wreck destruction or discord when "good" is somehow blindsided or unaware of its presence (think Iago and Othello). --67.86.96.129 (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Veryverser Also, I forgot to mention that which has always been obvious past the first half-hour of the film (part of the insidiously creeping horror that most movie-goers and "Wiki" editors have refused to come to terms with: BOTH ROSE DA SILVA AND SGT. SYBIL BENNETT HAD ACTUALLY DIED WHEN THEY BOTH CRASHED IN THAT HIGH-SPEED CHASE!!! How else were they able to enter the "limbo" dimension of "Silent Hill"? (The "many-named demon" needed Rose; it had no need of Sgt. Bennett, unless she was an unintended distraction for the cultists.) This seems to be the same theme in the 2002 Nicole Kidman-marqueed film "THE OTHERS". I believe both Cuse and Leidolf were inspired to use this "plot device" to close the final episode (Season 6 )of "Lost". --67.86.111.161 (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Veryverser

(Hula-Hup): "This is speculation. Unless there is a reliable source saying that they died in the crash, this cannot be included." Hula Hup (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Granted.
However, in the movie Rose Da Silva indicated that she hit her head. And isn't it curious that her air-bag didn't deploy (not an oversight by the director). Sgt. Bennett was also in a horrible motorcycle crash perusing Rose. We must consider that if the two weren't dead in the beginning (Bennett was immolated, so that's that), then the Demon left Rose out to dry in Limbo. (Being the devil, this would make sense.) Yes, yes of course this may be the plot that leads to the upcoming sequel. Yet, the ambiguity is what one should ponder (and no, one need not present "reliable sources"; I mean, how could one for scripted, purely fictional story, silly, in this case? --67.86.111.161 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)--184.207.6.174 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

"Hula Hup" retorts:  "Whether the car had an air bag which didn't deploy or whether the Demon left Rose in Limbo or in hell or in a similar place is unfortunately speculation again; reliable sources are always needed, especially in situations such as this, where facts may be interpreted differently by each person or possibilities may be presented as facts." Hula Hup (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(Responding to "Hula Hup"'s fevered "objections"
Granted. However, in the movie Rose Da Silva indicated that she hit her head. And isn't it curious that her air-bag didn't deploy (not an oversight by the director). Sgt. Bennett was also in a horrible motorcycle crash perusing Rose. We must consider that if the two weren't dead in the beginning (Bennett was immolated, so that's that), then the Demon left Rose out to dry in Limbo. (Being the devil, this would make sense.) Yes, yes of course this may be the plot that leads to the upcoming sequel. Yet, the ambiguity is what one should ponder (and no, one need not present "reliable sources in this case). --67.86.111.161 (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)--184.207.6.174 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

You see, "Hula Hump", this is partly why I like to engage certain "wiki" commenters\"editors" who get hot under their jock-straps over the contrivance of a storied film. This is a M-O-V-I-E, nothing more!!! However, of this particular work, I think it evokes deep philosophical, metaphysical, and spirituals issues of man's life, death, morals, and-here, particularly-the nature of the life-force of humankind (metaphysics again). It is an amusing curiosity, the reactions of so-called "movie critics" such as Mr. Ebert, who claimed that he was confused about the plot line of the story. That's a good reaction; perhaps he, and others in his profession who make a living of "criticizing" should look again at this film, and commit to some serious "introspection" themselves; then they'd understand the "direction" of the film! I'm sure the sequel, if nothing else shall reveal-in Rose's case anyway, what her "celestial" condition is (I insist that she, and Sgt. Cybil Bennet were killed in the chase, and emerged "conditionally" dead, aka "G-H-O-S-Ts", just like all of the witch-burning "congregation"). I would like to end this tet-a-tet with a speculation that this film "Silent Hill" is destined to be a "slow-burn classic" movie. --67.86.111.161 (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)--184.207.6.174 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

...And Further More...
I make dire insistence that, near the end of Alessa's vengeful carnage, "demon" Alessa did not "fuse", or "conjoined" spiritually with Sharon! That would mean the actual Alessa would have either fused with the demon, since "Sharon" was of Alessa's essence, and that Alessa would never agree to trade one evil for another, by having the devil further control Sharon. Despite Gans' assertion, nothing in the film suggests that Alessa had fused with Sharon, as Alessa was a middle-aged "creature" by this time, and would have spread havoc if she was to become mortal once again, corrupting the soul of her culled, child essence! Rather, I think that Alessa was freed from her pact, once fulfilled, to go to her "eternal rest"; and "Sharon" allowed to "reboot" her life as an innocent child, supposedly with the rest of her life before her, that is, if she could get both herself, and her mother out of "Limbo"! This brings up yet another notion that, as I have asserted before, if Rose da Silva is dead, then maybe her daughter, the 'essence'-soul-of Alessa has no physical, earthly form in which to return to the real world, now that Alessa herself is truly, finally gone! The final car drive home from "Silent Hill", must have informed a still-decidedly shocked Rose that things were still "not right", that she and Sharon were still in "Limbo"! Now, THIS is what I have been insisting is "ambiguity" as a necessary ingredient in the recipe of a great Horror-Mystery! That's why this film stands alone, and apart, as its own classic!!! --146.111.156.100 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)--184.207.6.174 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

And, She certainly Ain't No "Angel"
Responding to Mr. Christopher Gans' vigorous assertion the years since the theatrical run of "Silent Hill" that the demon "Alessa" figure is not a devil-like entity of any "Christian" reference, but a "superior being" as he puts it. Well, my hat's off to Mr. Gans, as he has given me a great opportunity to forage once more into this still, my favorite horror film! The "Devil", as you say, is nowhere, and in no way-as any common-sense person knows-a concoction, time-lost reference, nor an owned "brand" of Judaism, nor Christianity! Bad, malevolent, and unfriendly 'spirits' are common the world over! Even the classic, ancient Greeks were smart enough to know that the Olympian deities, with the exception of a few, bode mankind no good will, and usually intervened more to vex, and maintain their servitude to their masters, and destruction of their chattel, rather than lead them to further enlightenment, and evolution! As for demon "Alessa" being a "superior" being: This entity kills, murder, deceives, and lies; yet despite all of its great, displayed powers, it could not thwart, and was helpless against Christabel, and her cult's psychic barriers; and also, needed Rose da Silva bottomless well of love for her child to finally confront the cult! All ingredients that define a "lesser" being, as the devil, in nearly all cultures gives self-testament! I think that Mr. Gans, being European, and probably has experienced of himself and family living through the "Armageddon" of Post-war destruction, and painful "Reconstruction" (something he may share with his U.S. "Southern" neighbors, colors his outlook on life and other matters (so, I'm not going to use the derisive "C"-word). At the very least, he has channeled this into-at least in this case-what I consider a great work!!! --146.111.156.100 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)--184.207.6.174 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

Ecto-Plasmic Exasperations
(Responding to "Hula Hup"} Jesus Christ, man; get a hold of yourself! How can you, with a straight face, compare ethnic notions of "good", "evil', the "devil", and "angels"? All these "references" are universal, and common reflections of the actions of Man: "Good", and "Evil" simply are universal in the sentient being scientifically designated as HOMO SAPIEN-SAPIENT (Although, most "outside" observers would strenuously doubt that the common actions of we, the dominate species are anything but "SAPIENT"!!! And, as for your "theories" of why the "Bloody-Alessa" demon didn't need Sharon...well, that's simply "Stupid Hubris", as the the demon itself states "...Their blind 'faith' repels me: I cannot enter as long as they deny their 'Fate'; but you can, Rose"! As she convinces a cautious Rose (who, by that time realized EXACTLY what she was confronting,) she mystically "merged" into Rose's body, to gain entrance into the citadel. but, that was not enough: The demon was banking on Rose provoking the cult into a further act of Blasphemy...and more than either of them bargained for, as the enraged psychopath Christbell strucked Rose down, therefore not so much as "freeing" the demon within her, as, rather, the act of murder within the "sanctuary" freed the demon, and cancelled the spiritual "prohibition" keeping it out! See how simple that was? --184.248.11.255 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)--184.207.6.174 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Veryverser

Suggested sources
For "Reception":
 * Hula Hup (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * . Hula Hup (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DVD commentary
According to the commentary by the director on the French Metropolitan DVD, Sharon and Alessa (who he outright states are the manifestations of the good and bad sides of Alessa's soul) fused into one incarnation of Alessa at the end of the movie. I'm not sure how to put that without it being erased though, since it comes from a commentary and not an online source. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.122.181 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You could check out American Beauty (film). The "Mendes & Ball 2000" footnotes are tied to a DVD commentary reference. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Stuff that might be better used in the sequel's article
In December 2006, Christophe Gans confirmed that a sequel was "officially ordered and well on the way." Gans later pulled out and production was delayed for various reasons though Roger Avary initially signed on to write the script.

According to producer Don Carmody, the sequel would be more accessible to the movie-going public: "Silent Hill is not a blockbuster game like Resident Evil or the other games out there. It's a connoisseurs' game. It has its own, rabid fan base. They're not cheap, these things. You have to appeal not only to the gamers, you have to appeal to a wider audience." Carmody also stated the film would be set "years later" with the main character "much older."

In November 2010, it was confirmed that Michael J. Bassett would direct the sequel, titled Silent Hill: Revelation 3D. It would center on Heather Mason (a character taken from Silent Hill 3) when she starts having nightmares that lead her to Silent Hill and the mystery of her father's disappearance. Bassett revealed he had written his own screenplay, apparently replacing Roger Avary. He added that he would bring back as many of the core creative team as he could from the first film to keep its look and feel but add "more darkness and fear into the mix as well". Filming began in March 2011.

The section here just needs a short summary - what when by whom with what effect. --Niemti (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This article could be expanded a bit more
This article could be expanded a bit more, there should be a section that talks about the film's style and it's visuals. The reason I think this should be added is because all off the articles of films based on video games have these sections, (not good excuse but at least it is one).--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Silent Hill (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/silenthill/productiondiary/archives/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413153435/http://silenthill.ugo.com/features/realsilenthill/default.asp to http://silenthill.ugo.com/features/realsilenthill/default.asp
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68D7S1pfU?url=http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6605116 to http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6605116&publicUserId=1002415
 * Added tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/2151/silent-hill-begins-production
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007185326/http://www.ecranlarge.com/interview-282.php to http://www.ecranlarge.com/interview-282.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912090529/http://horror.about.com/od/movierelated/a/int_sh_gans.htm to http://horror.about.com/od/movierelated/a/int_sh_gans.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604070720/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2006/04/12/2006-04-12_read_my_lips___a_film_poster.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2006/04/12/2006-04-12_read_my_lips___a_film_poster.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Critical response in lead
, I'm not sure what this edit summary means, but I thought it would be easier to move this discussion over to the talk page. The lead section for a film should not contain this type of WP:SYNTH of sources because it is a form of original research. WP:FILMLEAD also discusses this, and there was a prior discussion that resulted in the current language of that section regarding proper WP:WEIGHT. I have replaced that with the summary provided from Rotten Tomatoes for now, as that is a neutral, third-party source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Can't you really notice a page under construction? Despite looking at the history of the page, can't you see hundreds of words and resources added recently? Don't you know that there are actually some contributors like me who are trying to vastly improve the articles? Don't intervene when someone is actually making constructive edits. You insclined my enthusiasm for improving the page, now it will be incomplete so you can do what the hell you want. ภץאคгöร 21:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you make many useful edits, but I did not think that your changes were improvements to the lead regarding the critical reception. You do not WP:OWN articles, and this was the only edit you had made to the article in three days. What is your concern with the Rotten Tomatoes summary? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Undefined refs
could you please go through the cite errors at the bottom of the page and fill in the refs that you named without giving them a source? I'm not sure if all of them are from you, but definitely several.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)