Talk:Silent Hill (film)/Archive 1

Plot Status as of 6/12
Well, someone finally managed to cut the word-count to a somewhat decent level. Unfortunately, it did some damage to its "readability." While, in frustration, I decided to simply revert to the older version, the weight of the old word-count made me decide to simply stick with the new version and simply fix it as I go.

Going to take a break for today, before I over-edit the hell out of it.

--Studio Ghibli 16:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Contra Reference
Should it be added under trivia that in the scene where Rose is memorising the way to room 111, she's actually saying the 99 lives code from Contra, another Konami game.

No, she's not.

Indeed she's not. She doesn't say "up" or "down" at any point, and she seems to go "left, left, right, right", not "left, right, left, right". And the wards are numbered, not lettered, so instead of "B, A", she says, "5, 6, 7, etc." It's more commonly known as the Konami Code though, it's not just for contra. --thaddius

Amused
"frantic fleeing flock of feathered fowl" - whoever put in that chunk of alliteration deserves a cookie. Thanks for the informative article, all. --69.164.37.223 13:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed a bunch of stuff
I changed a bunch of things for now; added a plot summary, etc. I'll be adding some stuff probably off and on. -- Voretus 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki
Hi,

I changed the interwiki the other day, so that they go to the movie not the video game page!

This page is about the movie so it should interwiki only to the pages related to the movie (the only one I know is the french one fr:Silent Hill (film))

If you could put the correct interwiki it would be nice. (I wont do it again, there is too much change I will be reverted again)

ZeroJanvier 22:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some egregious interwiki on the article page. "basement"??? Really, this kind of dictionary style linking is a blight on Wikipedia. 70.26.63.76 06:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Randal

Officiality of Trailer
Just curious about the Trailer, I watched it and it seems real enough to me. Certainly too many new images, and the quality is nothing like a fan made version (if you ask me).

However, it seems curious that the trailer is available at Yahoo! but not at the official site. Thoughts?

captbananas 10:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was an exclusive to Yahoo. This happens. --Golbez 21:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's on welcometosilenthill.com now. --Golbez 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank's for the update! :) captbananas 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Two plot summaries?
There really needs to be an explanation on the page for why there are two plot synopses.

Actually, come to think of it, the first one on the page could probably be killed entirely, at least until we have more info. --Gwilym 05:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply havn't done it yet. But the official page now has a synopsis that should probably overwrite both of the current "plot summaries" since both seem to have truths to them, but are overwhemlingly incorrect compared to the official synopsis. captbananas 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. -Tzepish 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hooray! --Gwilym 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Speculation about the schoolgirl
Does anybody genuinely believe that the girl may be Christabella? I keep my finger pretty firmly on the pulse of the SH community, and I have never actually seen a single person consider it as a possibility. I've seen plenty of people refer to 'some people' considering it as a possibility, but that's kind of speculation about speculation, which is too far removed from fact to belong on the front page.

I'm removing that line for now (cite some sources and I'll agree with it going back in), and tidying up a few other parts of it (such as Dahlia being a confirmed character, which she isn't). Thanks for adding it, though, it's a good addition. --Gwilym


 * Okay, I ended up going overboard there. If anyone has any criticism on my HUGE new update (compare with the previous version to see what is new), I welcome it entirely. I can't help feeling that I kind of overstepped my boundaries with it. --Gwilym 01:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I happen to enjoy your additions. There is still much to be seen, and i'm sure leading up to the release in April we will have much more information. So of course this will be ever changing, but for now - I think it's pretty accurate. The only quirk I noticed is the final note regarding canon.


 * In my honest opinion, having been a follower of the Silent Hill series for awhile now, I find it strange that Konami (the original creators of the series) and the Silent Hill Team would even bother making a film if they didnt want to include it in canon. While we can assume that the character of Rose in some way equates to Harry Mason from the original Silent Hill, and of course Sharon would therefore equate to Cheryl, is it all that unbeleivable that this is a new story alltogether? Unless i'm completely missing something from the games, I dont recall much regarding the "fires" that are described in the trailer. And in the trailer Rose wipes ash (presumably from the continuing fires) from her face, which is falling, instead of snow (which is ever present in the first Silent Hill game). Hence the possibilty of an entirely new story, which may or may not be included in canon.


 * Thoughts? captbananas 12:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've removed the line about it being unlikely - I experimented with various forms of a sentence describing that there are compelling arguments from both sides of the fence, but decided that silence was just as effective. --Gwilym 20:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

IMDB says that Alice Krige is playing Chistabella, and you can see her in the trailer, so... ~ Sefiros 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * At the same time as that information was added, IMDb also also said that Sean Bean was playing Harry Mason. The site has also recently claimed that Heather Morris played Eileen Galvin in SH4, that Dave Chappelle was to appear in GTA: San Andreas, and various other pieces of ridiculous disinformation. In my opinion, taking IMDb pre-release information with a grain of salt is being generous. In other words, I'll believe it when I see it. --Gwilym 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent!
Simply put, I really anjoy the additions and changes you have made here Gwilym, and of course others. Up until the release of that trailer, we were all in the dark about this movie. But now things have at least started to pan out for the Silent Hill movie. And i'll tell you what, i'm quite excited. captbananas 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This is actually the first substantial Wikipedia contribution I've ever made (my first being a tiny modification of the page about Orson Welles about six months ago), and I really enjoyed doing it. I'm glad it was appreciated! Though I've already had my first experience about being kind of... precious about my writing (the comment about Brookhaven/Alchemilla; I didn't think it blended with what I'd written), so I hope nobody takes offense if I slightly re-word or debate anything they add to it. (Don't worry, I definitely know that it's not "my page.") --Gwilym 09:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Issues regarding Canon
Frankly, I beleive that the line "At this point, it is unknown if events in this film will be considered series canon." should stay where it is. Unless whoever made that last edit is working on the film and knows for a fact (or has a reference for us) that the film will absolutely not be considered canon, then it needs to stay put.

The fact that there are differing facts between the games and what has been supplied to us so far from the movie isnt enough to go on. As far as we know, its a whole new story set in the Silent Hill universe, and therefore may be part of canon. captbananas 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I personally think the line should stay (and not just because I wrote it - you probably remember that I wrote it as "unknown, but unlikely," so it's not like I disagree with the editor). But there's just no way for us to know at this point. Which kind of makes the line little more than filler, but oh well. It's a truth.--Gwilym 11:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then it might be best to tweak this so it is clear that you are talking about movie, not game, canon. The movie could certainly be "canon" for purposes of sequels, etc, but has *far* too many inconsistencies with the games for both to be considered canon for the series as a whole. It's just not possible. 70.26.63.76 06:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Randal

Latest revert/P. Head scene
I dunno. That scene certainly doesn't belong under 'synopsis', as it is completely unclear how (if at all) it connects to the storyline. It's also a spoiler (plus the event as described is not exactly how I've seen it described by other people who saw the footage).

Either way, if anybody else thinks it belongs on the page somewhere, let's discuss it and figure out a place for it - but right now, I can think of dozens of exciting scenes from promos and trailers, and we can't mention them all. At any rate, it's not part of the synopsis. Perhaps the trailer section could be expanded, and this mentioned as an aside at the end of it? --Gwilym 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest cast edit
Do we have a source for this? I'm still yet to see any evidence that Kim Coates even appears in the film, let alone as this 'Officer Gucci' character, who played such an absurdly minor role in the first game that I'd be surprised if Gans or Avery even knew who he was. So... source?

And IMDB isn't a source. I'd trust Uncyclopedia before I trusted IMDB. --Gwilym 18:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * *nod* No Kidding, despite the fact that I had heard that Gans and Avery rigourously played the games... the mention of Officer Gucci at the Police Station in Silent Hill 1 is so remote... it seems strange to even add it to the movie. captbananas 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna give this about four hours for debate, then - unless there is some compelling argument - I'll revert those edits and put a disclaimer that there are several cast lists circling the internet, and (as of right now) most of them are a product of misinformation. --Gwilym 18:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have some evidence, there has been new interviews with the names, there are also newspaper clippings with the names Officer Gucci, and set pics with Kim Coates playing this character that intercepts Sean Bean's character outside of Silent Hill. Also look at the theatrical trailer. I will put up links for the promotion newspaper clippings handed out at wondercon. Also it has been proven that Tanya Allen's character is named Ana, not Alyssa. Imbd is not a reliable source. Proof of Officer Gucci, and the Da Salva last name (read the clippings).
 * http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9543/shpromopaperbyglassmermaid8wy.jpg
 * http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4708/shpromo2byglassmermaid0ze.jpg
 * http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/1813/shpromo3byglassmermaid0dp.jpg
 * proof of Tanya Allen's official character name.
 * http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/aasilenthillcast.htm


 * Also I remember them stating in an interview the name "anabelle."
 * There are 3 links below to very nice interviews with all the information you need to names so far.
 * http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/features.php?id=218 {set report interview)


 * http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/features.php?id=219 (Gans Interview)


 * http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/features.php?id=220 (cast Interview)

Ruhe1986 20:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent, excellent, excellent stuff. Thank you very much! I will incorporate what I think is undisputable fact (which is a lot of this) into the article (though I will still put that disclaimer).--Gwilym 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! I've also updated the 'relationship to the games' section. There's a sentences in there that I'm not sure about, but I'll let you figure out what it is (and change it, if you feel the need).--Gwilym 21:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, There has been alot of crap, I have noticed lately, going on around the internet about the Silent Hill Movie. So I'd like to clear some of it up. I keep a close eye on boards and things like that. Ruhe1986 21:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

New Section Added, HELLPPP!!!
I'm terrible with linking, and I have typed all that up. Can someone please link items in the text to the accurate pages. If one would like to add anything to the new section, please do. I just beg of you not to mutilate my precious baby too much. I would like also to add a link to he West Virginian page too. Or whatever anyone thinks is appropriate. Thanks lol. Ruhe1986 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mythology Section
It's an interesting addition, but it's also what inter-linking was designed for. Right now it takes up nearly half of the article text, and since it's basically trivia, this doesn't sit well with me. I think it could easily be abbreviated to one or two sentences - something like "The movie is set in West Virginia, perhaps because of the numerous phenomenon that have occured there over the years." followed by a sentence containing links to the most notable. A history of West Virginia's misfortunes really doesn't belong here. All movies are set in a locale, and every locale has its stories. --Gwilym 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally think it fits well and I was going to add more to it. But this time put the connection with Centralia PA. and the mining accident there. If you want to take it all off, you can, but can you NOT delete it all? Ruhe1986 20:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think any of that information has any place here. Although the writer points out "parallels" to Silent Hill, they're not very convincing. It's very unlikely that any of that information is relevent to the topic at hand, and furthermore, it's just not very interesting. I would suggest that the section be moved to its own article, or probably more appropriately, be linked to as an external source hosted elsewhere. Elvrum 04:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. While it's interesting, we have no way of knowing wether or not the SH franchise is steeped in midwest mythology. Sn00gans


 * It goes without saying, but I too agree. But I don't have the heart to kill it myself. --Gwilym 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First off how are the arguements, "Not very convincing"? There are lots of stuff on Wikipedia that "Isn't very interesting". I find it very interesting, which is why it convinced me to write the section in the first place. I could very easily make the statement that the Relationship to the games section isn't very revelant, because it has nothing to do with the movie itself, but the games, or interesting, but I DO find the "Relationship to video Games" interesting and very revelent to this movie, it's all a matter of opinion. I say lets wait until the film comes out and we here more arguement before we just delete it. Ruhe1986 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're alone on this one. For one thing, the section about the relationship to the videogames is obviously directly related to the movie, and is all based entirely on evidence. This isn't. This is related to the name of a state, and like I said - every single movie is set somewhere. Every place on the planet has its stories. Not a single piece of released SH movie publicity has shown anything related to Native Americans, UFOs, the Silver Bridge, tornadoes, freight trains or scaffolding.


 * I pulled punches earlier, but basically, it's absolute flotsam. Any relevance to the movie or games is extremely tenuous (we don't need to see the movie to know this). You wouldn't include the history of Las Vegas in the page about the movie "Casino," would you? Or the history of submarine warfare in "Das Boot?" Or the history of UFO sightings in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind?" Or a treatise on multiple personality disorder for "Killer 7?"


 * Hopefully you see my point. And the West Virginian mythology is even further removed from the topic at hand than any of the examples I just gave. --Gwilym 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of arguing about it. The oh so irrelevant section has been removed. I should have let you all remove it. Ruhe1986 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm re-editing the page to add the references to the Mothman legends, but in a much more subdued form. It will basically be a short description of the parallel and a link to Mothman, where people can draw their own conclusions. As always, feel free to edit mercilessly. --Deriamis 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Cast Additions
What's up with all these unconfirmed additions to the cast list? If this information is being pulled from IMBD it needs to be removed because we all know that IMDB isnt really all that accurate in terms of upcoming movies/etc.

However, if you can show me a citation (NOT IMDB!!) that is accurate, then we can re-add them. But for the time being, i'm removing any people and their characters that ARE NOT featured on the official Cast list at the official site. captbananas 00:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, 24.37.236.25 will you PLEASE stop adding uncited cast members to the list. If you want them to quit being deleted that all you have to do is show where you are getting this information. Untill then, I will continue to delete this information as it is UNCITED! Thank you. captbananas 01:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy shit, this guy never gives up.--Gwilym 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No Kidding. Seriously 24.37.236.25, have you even NOTICED what the page says? I'll quote it right here for you: "(Note: Since early in the film's production, several inaccurate cast/character lists have circulated the Internet, with many of them remaining on popular websites to this day. The following list is limited to the characters and cast whose appearances have been confirmed by a reputable source.)"


 * Your two additions are unconfirmed for the moment, and for the time being I think they need to stay off the list unless you can provide a reputable source for this information. I'm not asking alot, just show me where you found this information (and if it is reputable) and i'll quit deleting it. Thanks. captbananas 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the armless guy's credit is correct (there's no evidence of "the armless one" being the official name though), as I saw a news article a while back that had him interviewed, and I am PRETTY SURE that was the name in the article, and I am PRETTY SURE his comments led to the fairly clear conclusion that he was playing one of the straitjacket guys. Of course, 'pretty sure' is not a citation, and we really need one.--Gwilym 06:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I don't think they qualify as 'cast' anyway. More like stunt actors - heck, the guy playing the title role in 'Alien' doesn't even appear 'til several minutes into the credits, and is barely mentioned on the imdb or wikipedia pages for the film. --Gwilym 06:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if it turns out that his/her information is correct, another issue I have with those two people being on the cast list is we have absolutely no idea how involved those chracters are in the movie. Hypothetically, if we were watching a movie that happened to revolve around some friends and the problems they get themselves into, we wouldnt add the person who played the Pizza Guy who delivered their Pizza in a short scene to the cast list on the movies cast list, simply because it isnt of noteability to do so. At this point, I think it's fair only to include those people who we know are involved in the movie and have parts that are considered "major". I know this may sound horrible to a budding actor/actress, but seriously, we dont add just ANY information, it's gotta be notable. captbananas 07:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Really Dumb Movie Poster
What a lame movie poster. Ooh, yoga while blindfolded, scary!
 * MSTCrow 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be scary, it's supposed to be inspirational. --Gwilym 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow MSTCrow, you've swayed me! I won't go see this movie now! Your absolutely right! Why would I even consider seeing a movie that had a "lame" movie poster? That is SO indicative of what the movie is about/includes. You must be a genius. /sarcasm captbananas 07:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious over-wikification :D
The guy does have a point. This article is pretty ridiculously wikified already. I'll deal to this at some point.


 * I dont really see that many problems in the general article, however the Anon-IP that edited it earlier this evening turned every word in the opening sentance of the article into a Wiki-Link... just another outlandish attempt at vandalism is all it is. That's really all I was referring too. captbananas 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * it is interesting for a social study though. That hundreds of kids feel that they should over-wikify this as oposed to anything that might have some real relevance, culture is pretty limited for this time.

Don't be so mean. It isn't "hundreds" of kids, and they probably aren't all "kids." It's a handful of people who were struck enough by the movie to come contribute their time on wikipedia. In my case, while I wasn't so sure about all the other categories, after reading over what -I- found of the Plot, I said to myself, "I bet I could rewrite this to make it more pleasant," and I did exactly that. --Studio Ghibli 07:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he was referring to the person who edited the page just to make every single word in the opening paragraph an internal link. Personally, I thought it was quite funny, and highlighted the fact that the page had (and, to a lesser extent, has) far too many internal links.--Gwilym 10:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler marking
Could somebody please move this so that it marks the spoilers, and not the blurb for the film? I'd do it myself, but I don't wish to see the spoilers. :) (also, put a spoiler ending tag as well)

On another note, I've not seen the movie, and it's going to be MONTHS before I do, due to the film's horrendous international distribution, so I'll probably not be helping to maintain this page as I have been in the past (in fact, I may take it off my watchlist). Sorry, CptBananas, you're on your own!--Gwilym 08:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sad! Now I will have to do all the reverts myself and not have you helping me out (despite the fact that I should be saying I was helping you out, considering the amount we've both put into the article).


 * I have not yet seen the movie either, and I really want to go tonight... but it's looking like I might not even get to do that now. Hope to see you 'round on other articles! captbananas 23:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack listing
Isn't it good to be able to communicate this level of depth though? In case of people wondering "What was that song at [x]?" -- comment made by Cipher Destiny, added by captbananas


 * I don't think so. If Wikipedia had an entry for every special interest sub-topic (particularly involving music use in various media), the entire world would probably collapse under its own weight. If anything, it should be an external link. --Gwilym 10:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's unneccessary. No other films do this, unless the music is part of the story (and even then, they never say where each track appeared.

It could (should) easily be trimmed down to saying that the soundtrack is mostly a collection of slightly modified versions of tracks from the games, plus the Johnny Cash song.--Gwilym 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the only reason people who have got to see it (NOT ME YET!) have added this excessive information if because most fans were foaming at the mouth to find out if Akira Yamaoka would be scoring the movie or not. And while I can understand why some would want this information available, it is definatly not necessary and I agree with what you say Gwilym. It should definatly be edited down only to include mention that Yamaoka's music was in fact included, the Johnny Cash song is in there, and thats about it. captbananas 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also of note Cipher Destiny, please sign your talk comments and add your input to the end of the conversation so as not to flub up the flow of what is already there. Thank you. captbananas 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree I think the detailed information is useful for people who want to assemble their own version of the soundtrack using the various Silent Hill OST's


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information
 * I really think this is going against #2 and #8.--Gwilym 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a reader, not an editor, (or a gamer) but I found the soundtrack listing very useful. Please leave it in. ~IMP

I inserted the soundtrack as a means for fans of both the game and movie to know the names of the tracks. I did this for the sake of information, not as an excuse for people to go and illegally download these songs. As a long-time and devoted fan of the game and a fan of the film, I did this because other fans would find the information useful. According to :Christophe Gans:, there won't be a soundtrack to film though this may only be speculation. I understand your disappointment, Gwilym, but I did this for other fans' curiousity and for information regarding the soundtrack. There aren't any spoilers in the descriptions other than what certain characters are doing. So, please relax, this is a site based on providing users and visitors with information. -Fever_Chill


 * It's not like I disagree that there will be an audience for the information, I just don't think it is encyclopaedic. I mean, even I find it interesting (and I appreciate the creation of the list); I just think it's out of place on this site, and too close to a guide. I mean, most movies have soundtracks, but even musically-based films like The Blues Brothers, A Mighty Wind or This Is Spinal Tap don't go into this much detail. I still vote for an externally-linked page. --Gwilym 07:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the inconvenience, Gwilym. If you wish to delete the list, you can.  I was just hoping it would be useful.  :)  -Fever_Chill


 * I'm not gonna delete it, at least not until there's an external site we can link to. Besides, it looks like the list isn't quite finished yet, so we should probably wait 'til that's done first.--Gwilym 11:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, one of the latest edits to the section adds in an enormous spoiler. I wish I hadn't seen that, dammit. --Gwilym 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, the entire section is now full of heaps of ridiculous spoilers, most of which are totally unneccessary. It also takes up more than a page. Give it its own Wikipedia page, and if the mods end up removing it (possible), host one off-site. I may do the former myself unless I hear some massive objections. --Gwilym 05:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I created a separate link to the soundtrack listing: []. Though I don't know if anything will link there.  -Fever_Chill


 * I see people just couldn't have clicked the Main Article link on this section to update it. -Fever_Chill

Theories About The Ending?
I have not seen the movie yet but I hear there are many different theories about the ending? Anybody think it's a good idea to add a subsection? Empty2005 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as it is now, the ending speculation is woven in with the ending plot details which is confusing and a bad thing. Separating it out would be good. JoshuaZ 04:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite what the guy above me said, I'm thinking that the dark Alessa (the one claiming to be the reaper) lied to Rose. She's not just interested in revenge. The way I see it, when the dark Alessa appraoches Sharon near the end, she possesses her, in a similar way that Rose is posessed, but it seems Sharon is more vacant, possibly hving been replaced by her. That way they are able to leave Silent Hill, but not the foggy aspect of it. My guess is she actually wants to bring abour the apocolypse. Sharon was actually called to Silent Hill. That might suggest her intents. --thaddius


 * I would also like to see more speculation, especially from those who played the game. I'm very confused to what happened at the end and would like to analyze some different perspectives to what people think. -Moocats
 * I played the games and this film is a very large departure story-wise. Them stayig in the foggy place is probably a setup for another film. Possibly an explaination for why the 'corruption' seems to be spreading in the games. --thaddius


 * I haven't played the games, but I've read the wikipedia articles and have seen some clips of the game. Anyways, my belief on the ending was that Rose and Sharon are dead or traped in the foggy world. The thought behind this is that I think it was said that Sharon was the "good" part of Alessa, when "the reaper" decided to help Alessa get revenge on all the people in Silent Hill. So the demon, split them into two separate people: Alessa, the bad- whose worse nightmares would be reflected into the town of Silent Hill, and Sharon, the good- who was left at Toluca County orphanage and later adopted by Rose. Now, when the big finale in the church happened, "the reaper" helped Rose by bringing the real Alessa out of the ground and killing the rest of the church people. When Rose finally rescued Sharon, Rose told her to close her eyes so she wouldnt see the people being mutilated and such. But Sharon opened her eyes and "the reaper", either possessed Sharon or put Sharon and Alessa together again. I'm really not sure if any of that is right... I have to watch it again, but thats just my contribution.

-Lindsey8417


 * I have questions about the ending as well. It strikes me as one of those movies where you're not supposed to fully understand the ending. However, given that the cult members in the foggy Silent Hill had supposedly died in the fire, and they were just ghosts of a sort who had not accepted their sins (as the Dark Alessa mentions), could it be that everyone in the foggy Silent Hill are ghosts? Including Rose, Cybil, and Sharon? Perhaps they all died at the beginning during the car wreck. The ONLY problem with that theory is when Rose made the phone call to Chris. If she were a ghost, I don't think that would be possible. Very confusing, but I thought it was an excellent movie. The unnerving nature of the movie itself is what really sold me on it. Very Lovecraftian I thought. JJ4sad6 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I can add I've seen various movies that portray people being trapped in the spirit world where demons and ghost dwell regardless of whether they are alive or not. In fact there are various legends or stories where people where taken by dwarves( not the nice kind, more frightening) into their world were if you eat some of their food you can no longer return. In my opinion the same thing has happened to Rose and Sharon, trapped within a world that is more or less neither purgatory or hell as spirits. Although just like what many others have noticed, Sharon was not acting the way she had once was at the end of the movie ( I saw her eyes meet with Alessa's mother as she was leaving and she seemed to have control on how they can go and leave silent hill) so maybe she has indeed merged with her darker half just as what happened to Alessa in silent hill 1. Just theories.

And so I think the ending can be considered close or open depending on the person. To me it can be a closed ending that can be considered a happy ending because Rose has been reunited with her daughter and a tragic ending because both of them are now stuck in a spirit world or a sort of limbo,more or less ghosts that might never be able to have their family reunited. Silent Hill to me might show that even the protagonists don't always win at the end.

I to saw the movie the ending it really messed with my head. But I was online the other day looking at a behind the scenes look at Silent Hill when the Executive Producer said that the daughter and the mother had slipped into another dimension. So that is way the police could not find the bodies.

Writing an appraisal of this film's reception is very difficult.
For now, I think we should wait before adding an overarching statement, as the movie has not been out for even a week yet. But I can say now that I don't believe "fans like the movie and critics do not" is accurate at all. I have seen plenty of fans who have disliked the movie, and plenty of critics who have liked it despite having no knowledge of the games (few of the positive critical reviews on rottentomatoes are from fans).

I have a feeling that the point of the section will have to end up being that opinions on the film have been extremely varied and polarised, and it's impossible to summarise them. Which seems almost a cop-out, but it's the most accurate way to put it that I can think of.

At least at this point, the wild difference between critical averages and user averages should probably not be read into, as a great deal of the high user ratings showed up before the movie had even been out long enough for many of those who voted to have seen it. That it's trickled away so much in a matter of days is testament to this. The exact same thing happened with Final Fantasy: Advent Children.

Anyway, the point is that we should wait, for now. The response section is quite messy as it is, and definitely needs re-writing, but I don't think we have enough solid information to do it at the moment.--Gwilym 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Empty theatres seem to be the situation, here. With 25% (as of tonight, 24%) on the Tomatometer, the "critics dislike it" part of the message is certainly on firm ground. The other generalization that might be accurate at this point appears to be "fans of the game like or appreciate the film, while those unfamiliar with the game do not". Still early days, however, as you say. 70.26.63.76 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Randal K.

I to saw the movie the ending it really messed with my head.But I was online the other day looking at a behind the scenes look at Silent Hill when the Executive Producer said that the daughter and the mother had slipped into another dimension. So that is way the police could not find the bodies.

Expanded plot
I've expanded the plot of the film to include more background story on WHY Alessa is so pissed. And some general corrections including monster names and what not.

I'm wanting to know if this is good for the article. Thanks.

Summary needed, not ENTIRE plot...
The rewrite of the plot section has made this article ridiculously long. It desperately needs to be cut down to size.


 * Yeah. Pretty much every section suffers from enormous bloat. The article's become 'an overcooked nightmare' itself. I can't take to it with a scalpel myself for fear of reading spoilers, though. I'm probably not the best maintainer of the page right now. --Gwilym 05:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

- Studio writes: I apologize for starting the overcooked nightmare beast. ;P


 * I didn't think you did. You made it longer, but it was already too long as it was. You just made it do what it was already doing, but do it better. Does that make sense? --Gwilym 06:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Studio writes: Makes sense. I've left it alone since the original length complaint, despite the urge to edit both typos and grammatical errors. People still tacking stuff on and rewriting bits and pieces. If anything, I'll wait until all of that dies down--and then maybe look into shortening it somehow. --Studio Ghibli 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I really like how detailed the plot description is. That being said, the page desperately needs a "Plot synopsis" section. 70.26.63.76 07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Randal

I agree. The plot synopsis is quite comprehensive, but perhaps, on the talk page, at leas, there should be a user-discussion? For example, the fact that Cybil was clearly killed off, and Dahlia was less of a psycho was fascinating, as was PH... Did he resemble Rose's inability to deal with the situation, or something else? Anyway, kudos to everyone here so far!

Mr. Sinclaire


 * Yeah this article definally needs to be trimmed down, it's well written but the entire movie's plot is not needed. I'd do it, but to be honest I don't entirely understand the plot fully myself. Code E 11:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Current movie poster
Why is there a fan-made movie poster instead of an original movie poster in the main page? Are there any legal issues? (I doubt it because the original movie poster is used in the Soundtrack listing.) Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the mouthless Alessa poster should be the one used on this page. It has been the most official and widely used poster for promotion (as well as it being used for the DVD cover). --Beanssnaeb 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis
Is the car accident really 'bizarre' ?

From Onelook: Quick definitions (bizarre) # adjective:   conspicuously or grossly unconventional or unusual.

She is driving very fast, sees something cross the road, swerves to avoid hitting it, crashes the car. What is so bizzare about that?--R6rome 13:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, yes the radio is going nuts and her daughter screaming, but still...--R6rome 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There should also be some mention that this is an automobile accident--R6rome 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it could be bizarre in the fact that in later scenes the vehicle doesn't show any damage from running into anything, yet it came to hard stop causing rose to hit her head knocking her out as if it did hit something. -- Arikane 16:42, 2 May 2006

Ah, and the fact that the thing she swerved to avoid was a demon-child manifestation thing trolleymusic 03:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Toluca Lake
The article is a bit unclear and appears to imply that the Toluca Lake in CA is referenced in the game. I changed the wording to clear this up.

'However, there is Toluca Lake in California, which is referenced in the second game in the series,...' --R6rome 19:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much editing!
For those who feel inclined to edit the synopsis portion of the wiki, please do so only if it is necessary. Yes, I originally edited 'cause I thought it could be worded better--but, as someone who works with the English language on a daily basis, I really saw it -needed- that edit. As of right now, while it does need a touch-up here and there, it doesn't need anything added to it, any major revisions, et cetera.

If anything, find ways to cut it down.

Cleanup
I've tagged the plot section of this article for cleanup as it is far, far longer than it should be. Someone familiar with the movie should make an attempt to cut it down from a play-by-play to a rundown of the major events. --InShaneee 22:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

-whoops, i started cleaning up the whole plot, ill see about doing a large overviews to condense it.


 * Over the past few weeks, I've been attempting to cut down the plot... although I believe its currently about 3050 words still. The task is proving to be quite difficult because there are numerous minor aspects of the film that contribute, so editing out something completely can be a difficult decision. Anyways, if anyone has a problem with my plot edits, let me know. -Lindsey8417 07:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've got that much far to go, if at all. It's looking great! --InShaneee 14:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Effects...
The article says "Nearly all of the creatures that appear in the film are actors covered in latex and makeup, rather than the computer-generated beings that many contemporary films use. The actors playing the monsters are professional dancers, and their movements were performed live, with some filmed backwards in order to give a strange and disturbing effect." What about the ending? And the horrible looking CGI? That's the climax of the movie, if they were going to spend time on something, they should have spent it on that.

Unrelated side notes: Was the volume insanely loud for other people too? People had to hold their ears during the movie. Also, a lot of people yelled out "What the hell?" at the end of the movie, and complained to the management and got their money back.

the sound was fine at the theater i went to. the ending of the movie was way too open ended but no reason to complain.

Trivia
Aside from this part being obscenely long, I removed a reference to Alessa being called 'Cheryl Mason' in the first game. Cheryl and Alessa are two seperate entities. I also took out the reference to Rose's directions being the Konami Code. This was discussed in the first option at the top, it's not the code. --Thaddius 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think the collection of lefts and rights was a wink and nod to videogame cheat codes trolleymusic 03:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody keeps adding in extremely inane trivia items, and it's just getting bizarre. "In the videogame, the protagonist's daughter's name is Cheryl Mason, not Sharon da Silva." Sure, it's true. But so? It's pretty strongly established at the start of the (increasingly long-winded) article that the game and the movie are not one and the same.


 * I mean, what, now we list things that weren't in the movie?


 * -The scene in which there is no slavering wolfman and no Jerry Goldsmith soundtrack was clearly not inspired by the stand-up comedy of Tim Allen.
 * -In the first forty minutes of the film, there are no displays of martial arts or toenail clipping.
 * -The actors inside the latex costumes did not complain about recurring skin conditions.
 * -Nobody on the production team was named Mussorgsky.--Gwilym 20:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That One you mentioned was something I didn't add but edited out soemthing. I should have deleted it. You're right though, some people are getting a little excited with that list. I'll do what I can to trim it down. --Thaddius 23:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some information in the Trivia section for Brantford, basically which shots were filmed there. I live in Brantford, and actually visited the set (for two scenes, only one which made it into the film). There may be more, but this is all that I remember. -- Doran 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I know a little
I to saw the movie the ending it really messed with my head.But I was online the other day looking at a behind the scenes look at Silent Hill when the Executive Producer said that the daughter and the mother had slipped into another dimension. So that is why the police could not find the bodies.

Plot
I tried shortening the plot, and changed some other things. In the first paragraph of the plot, I wrote "even though her husband is against her determination to cure her through actually taking her there." Isn't there a term for this?

Response
In the first paragraph of 'Response', it says "When advance screenings are not granted for a film, it is generally taken as a sign that the studio itself does not believe the movie will go over well with critics." Is that really relevant or needed? --Neur0X 04:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not unless a source can be provided that this is true. --InShaneee 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not hard to find sources for that. Just put 'not screened for critics' into Google. A lot of these are blogs, and probably aren't allowed as sources, but there are several news articles too. What should've gone is the stuff about foreign movies not being screened for critics. Not only has it been tagged as uncited for about a month now, but it's an outright lie (and irrelevant, since it's hardly a 'foreign film.' If it is, then so are the Lord of the Rings movies).--Gwilym 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that Lord of the Rings was an American studio financed film shot in a foreign country, and Silent Hill was a foreign independent financed production with an American studio only handling the domestic distribution rights.  I believe this is called a "negative pickup deal."  I seem to remember reading online that the film was a "wet print", which means they barely finished it before release.  Can someone confirm this?

Connections to Folklore
Removed the final section which seemed rather speculative. (user:HannuMakinen)

Critical of the Church?
Is this film critical of the Church or of the crazy, Silent Hill, burn the sin not the sinners Church? There was a rather excessive presence of Bible verses and pictures of Jesus loves you, etc.


 * There is a religious cult in the games as well, but they differ significantly from the cult seen in the movie. Where as the cult in the games was decisively paganistic, the cult in the film is a fanatic sect of puritans who burn witches to cleanse the world of evil (or what they percieve to be an embodiment of evil). Rather sick, if you ask me. (user:HannuMakinen)


 * Actually the cult in the game is not "decidedly paganistic". It is a mixture of indigenous beliefs and imported Christian beliefs, and the names of many of the creatures and objects (Samael, e.g.) are based on ancient Hebrew language and cosmologies.

Relationship to the Video Games
I'm wondering if the following should be added to that part of the page, or at all. After Rose sees the 3 cult members at the school being killed by the cockroachs, she runs into a room down the hall looking for escape. The room is shown to us in first person view and as the flashlight and camra run across the wall there appears to be the symbol of The Order from the video games, a circle within a circle with symbols in the outer circle and a triangle within the inner circle.(user:TheGreatSaiyamanX)

Relationship to the Video Games (Again)
''The ending scene of the film where Alessa comes up through a hole in the church is similar to the way Claudia Wolf falls through the hole in the church at the end of Silent Hill 3. ''

I disagree with this being in that section. Alessa slowly rises up through the (large) hole in the church floor, whereas Claudia doesn't fall so much as she is violently pulled by Valtiel through the (small) hole in the Chapel room. If no one objects I propose that this be taken out or expanded in such a way that it mentions holes as a recurring theme in the games. The only significance is that both scenes have holes in the floor, and if we're going to mention those then why not all the holes James Sunderland falls though as well? Levid37 06:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Latin Text
In the church, there's a giant thing in Latin, which reads, in part: DOMINE DEUS OMNIPOTENS IN CUIUS MANU OMNIS VICTORIA CONSIST??? (I didn't get the last few characters). What is this and what does it mean?172.192.252.9 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... my somewhat informed guess is "OUR GOD ALMIGHTY ON WHOSE HAND ALL VICTORY REST UPON".

DVD Cover
The cover shown on the page is not the actual region 1 cover, it's a mock-up that was used for promotional purposes before release. The actual cover is just the picture of Sharon/Alessa with the mouth photoshopped out, without any of the creature images, just like the promo posters. We can upload a copy of the actual cover, but since it is identical to the image in the infobox it might not be worth it. We could also leave the current image with a corrected caption (I've already done this) or just delete the whole thing all together.... Any preference? --ThisIsMyUsername 19:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Leave it with the corrected caption (good catch, btw) until someone can upload a scan of the actual dvd cover, then replace it with that. --InShaneee 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This change was reverted by 71.31.142.52, who claimed that the cover on the page is the final cover. I can confirm that this is not the R1 cover in Canada (I have the DVD, and I've seen it all over the place) but can't vouch for the rest of the R1 territories.  Can anyone else back this up?  Either way the caption as it stands now is misleading, at the very least it should read that it is the cover for "some" R1 territories, but I'm hoping that someone else can vouch for it before I make any corrections... --ThisIsMyUsername 16:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been three days and no protest, so I've corrected the caption to read "...US DVD cover" --ThisIsMyUsername 15:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Officer Gucci
In the character section it says Gucci in the movie was entirely original, but that isn't true. Although he never meets him in person, the character is encountered by Harry in the first game through documents that he finds lying around.

Rewritten Reception section
It was getting absolutely ridiculous - not only was it much too long, but it was POV in that the positive reviews were given far more screen time than the negative. As well as this, the positive reviews came first, which was misleading as the zeitgeist was clearly along the lines of the negative.

However, to avoid editing wars, it is now as even-handed as I could make it, with the same structure used for both the negative and positive reception.

I also removed some massive blanket statements, including that 'the French press' has been overwhelmingly positive about the film. We shouldn't cite non-English sources on the English Wikipedia page.

Much bloat was removed as well - there is simply no need to list the amount of positive and negative reviews, or how a score breaks down into its components - this information can be found on the pages linked to.

So. There you have it. Please, nobody edit this to add "however, this can be explained by..." or "on the other hand," after all of the negative comments.--Gwilym 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I wouldn't mind limiting the section to reviews from more well-known outlets, either. --InShaneee 20:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't hurt a bit, but right now I was just aiming to get reviews that gave a broad sense of the various common opinions. :]--Gwilym 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

gargantuan 'religious parallels' section
originalresearchoriginalresearchoriginalresearchoriginalresearchoriginalresearchoriginalresearchoriginalresearch

Sorry, you clearly spent a lot of time thinking of all that stuff, but... that's precisely what we're not supposed to do. :] --Gwilym 09:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, should be removed. --InShaneee 15:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say the general content might be good to keep in condensed form in the Trivia section. A movie like this with no analysis at all is somewhat remiss.  Marking the section with a need references tag might be better.  I did take the liberty of adding a concrete reference to Dark Alessa actually be Satan (something Christophe Gans says on the DVD), and I am pretty sure there are references to the foggy realm being Limbo or Purgatory, but not sure where. Anyway, my two cents --reanjr


 * Personally, I think the section's just absurd. It's also a perfect example of (a) what Wikipedia isn't for, and (b) the sheer insanity of many of the series' fans.--Gwilym 05:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

excellent job
i just watched the film on DVD, and like usual, i cruised over to wikipedia to find out more. what a wealth of information! fanstastically written and detailed, kudos all around. JoeSmack Talk 06:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparent Contradiction?

 * ... most critical reviews have been negative, with Rotten Tomatoes showing a freshness rating of 27% (with a 0% rating from the 'Cream of the Crop' critics), and Metacritic showing an average review score of 30 out of 100 ...

As opposed to:


 * Most community-based ratings have been notably higher than those of the critics - the film shows a freshness rating of 64% at Rotten Tomatoes, an average score of 8.5 out of 10 at Metacritic ...

shows that their is an apparent contradiction between these two stated facts. Can the contributer who wrote this please clarrify? I don't want to delete anything simply because I may have misunderstood the contexts ... yet the less patient passer-by might. This needs to be resolved. AQjosh 13:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, it's a really hard thing to phrase. Basically, Rotten Tomatoes has a separate freshness meter for community reviews - but it calls it the exact same thing. I'll try to come up with something here.--Gwilym 19:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing
Not a single citation, huge trivia section (which you're not supposed to have) amoung other things amoungst the article are going to force me to Fail this article

†he Bread 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I added citations, and shrunk the trivia section. I am renominating it. Cbrown1023 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Lisa Garland

 * She is never referred to in the movie as Lisa Garland, so I removed it from the synopsis and changed it the young nurse. I know she parallels her in game character but it may confuse those who have never played the games. 71.31.141.92

GA failed

 * 1. Well written? O.K.
 * 2. Factually accurate? Fail
 * 3. Broad in coverage? Fail
 * 4. Neutral point of view? O.K.
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images? Fail

Additional comments :
 * Too many lists.
 * Too many pictures for the plot section.
 * No picture states its fair use rationales.
 * The Plot section is too big.
 * The Trivia section needs to be cut down to the strict minimum of the notable stuff. Everything that will be left in such a section should be somewhere else in the article.
 * Sections DVD/Blu-Ray and Universal Media Disc should be merged.
 * Reordering the sections would be good too. The Reception section should go at the end.
 * There should at least be inline citations in the Religious Parallels paragraph.

Sorry for sounding harsh, this article is nicely written but it is just too long for this kind of article. Once there is work done on the article please request comments on my talk page. If you disagree or anything please request another reviewer. Good luck in the improving. Lincher 18:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Too many pictures for the plot section. Fixed
 * No picture states its fair use rationales. Fixed
 * The Plot section is too big. Condensed down, needs reviewed.
 * The Trivia section needs to be cut down to the strict minimum of the notable stuff. Everything that will be left in such a section should be somewhere else in the article. Fixed
 * Sections DVD/Blu-Ray and Universal Media Disc should be merged. Fixed
 * Reordering the sections would be good too. The Reception section should go at the end. Fixed
 * There should at least be inline citations in the Religious Parallels paragraph. Fixed
 * Too many lists. Largest concern. Best way to relay information for the connections section.
 * There should at least be inline citations in the Religious Parallels paragraph. Fixed.
 * Need further comments on how to improve this article. Extensive references have been added as well. --Beanssnaeb 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How about we get a peer review now (which should have been done before the last GA nom...)? --InShaneee 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done. --Beanssnaeb 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Religious section revisited
I'm hesitant to bring this up as it's already been mentioned once, but the entire section really is original research. At the VERY LEAST it needs citatations and a LOT of trimming. Even then I'd be hesitant to leave it up, because even if Gans does make specific reference to Alessa being the devil, that's still a LOT to infer from that one comment. The plot and especially the ending are left ambiguous for a reason and the section takes far too many liberties in explaining them. If it's cited and trimmed then perhaps it would merit leaving in but if not it should be removed. Levid37 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Give it about a week, and whatever isn't sourced properly by then gets chopped. --InShaneee 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As well-intended as it may have been, the section is a massive blight on the page. It's hilarious how it now argues with itself thanks to heaps of people wanting to add their two cents, as well. A perfect example of why only sourced, factual information should be included. Not 'obvious conclusions' or 'clear indications.' --Gwilym 20:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Revamping

 * I started on some initial revamping. I'm trying to get rid of useless or double mentioned info or trivia. also, i removed religious parallels, which can be brought back if there is significant research and references listed. I also started merging trivia into other sections where it can be fit. I also removed forklore, because it was fairly useless and i merged all of the home video together in one section. Just trying to take some large step towards cleaning up this monolith. Beanssnaeb 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i started condensing the plot. it's about 80% the size of what it was. Right now, the SH wiki page is 37k in size altogether, as opposed to 50k+ what it was before. We should shoot for around 32k if possible. --Beanssnaeb 17:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Release Table + Misc

 * -Here's the table for reference. Also, I have the the size down to 34k. The biggest hting that needs attention imo is condesing the plot. I'm shooting for GA status for this article and my editing has been done with that in mind. --Beanssnaeb 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * --Did even more condensing. The article looks to be shaping up. --Beanssnaeb 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

CGI
That comment just isn't true, and it's obvious to anybody who's seen the movie. The grey children encounter, 95% of the otherworld graphics, the entire climax... the film is dripping with not-entirely-convincing CGI work. "Comparitively little?" It uses the most of any horror film I can think of, hands-down. --Gwilym 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The gray children are NOT cgi; the added burning is, however. --Scix 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have clarified it a bit in the article. Comparitively, alot of the film was NOT CGI. The creatures all existed physically (except the roaches of course), but were touched up with CGI. The darkeness transitions were CGI but the real world, the foggy world, and the darkness worlds were all real, constructed sets. Making copies of real, existing entities (The actress in the Grey Child scene) and multiplying them isn't necessarily CGI, neither is frame shifting (nurses movements) CGI either. The CGI aspect would not be worth noting if entire sets or the creatures were done entirely in CGI, but that is not the case. Thoughts? --Beanssnaeb 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know a lot of the things weren't entirely CGI - but it was all augmented so very heavily that any real noteworthiness is mooted. Perhaps rephrase it to point out specifically that the creatures and sets existed physically? The sheer amount of constructed sets is definitely noteworthy, but the current phrasing makes it sound like the film was done in a purist fashion with no major computer assistance. Which I think is a bit misleading. (though I do think the film would've been better off if it had been! The bit with Colin in the bathroom was the only CGI shot I really liked.)


 * And as for the word 'comparatively' - I read it to mean 'compared with other films.' Or, to be fair, 'compared with other horror films.' I suppose it could also refer to the ratio of live action to CGI, but that's not anything really notable, since the newer Star Wars trilogy, Sin City or Sky Captain are the only films I can think of where the CGI outweighs the live action. At any rate, this is probably something that should be made less ambiguous. --Gwilym 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Clarified --Beanssnaeb 01:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hooray! I've also gone over it a bit too; see what you think. It's not perfect, so please change anything that bothers you.--Gwilym 03:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * cool with me, i further added a ref with how many shots. in an interview, gans said the film had some 300+ effects shots, but i cant find the source. --Beanssnaeb 04:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

More revamping
I started some more revamping, melding sections with others (dimensions -> plot) and adding more references. Basically, the biggest concern it seems with everyone is the plot section. I just went through it again and incorporated the dimension section into it. In the process, I shaved another 100 words off. Right now, it as about 300 more words then a few other good film articles I have read. Hopefully, editing the plot and reducing it down from here on in won't cut out vital information for an already confusing plot. --Beanssnaeb 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kick ass. Very nice! --InShaneee 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of unverifiable speculation in the plot section, specifically cases of "obviously" "forever trapped" etc. I think it can be pared down to the more open-ended, unless there are sources which specifically state otherwise.24.222.64.85 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :


 * 1. Well written? Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate? Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage? Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view? Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :
 * Image Image:Silent_hill.jpg needs a fair use rationale.
 * Make sure that all the inline citations appear after the punctuation.

Great article, make sure the comments mentioned above are taken care of and the GA status will be awarded for this article went through a great rejuvenation, thanks for those modifications, Lincher 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm very impressed with how good this article's become. Just a handful of weeks ago, I thought it was beyond repair, but you guys have proved me ridiculously wrong. Well done! --Gwilym 04:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA passed
Much work was done on this article to achieve the GA status and it really looks way better than on its first nomination on GA. Congrats, Lincher 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Woo! Handshakes all around, especially to User:Beanssnaeb, who really put in the effort for that final push. --InShaneee 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot! GJ everyone for their work on this article! --Beanssnaeb 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And it begins again.
Uh-oh. Someone's re-added the entirely fallacious idea that critics hate it, game fans and 'movie-goers' like it (they've also put it at the start of the article for some reason). And while it's cited, which is good, the way it's cited doesn't cut it - for instance, contributing editors to horror websites do not represent the general public.

My biggest problem is that the comment simply isn't true. On the Silent Hill forum that I visit, the "what did you think of it?" thread is divided about 50:50. I didn't enjoy the film, but based on the comments I heard from the entire rest of the theatre, I probably enjoyed it more than any of them. In my city, the film stayed in the theatres for about six days, and every person I spoke to, around the world, said the theatre was mostly empty when they saw the film. The average user score at IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Amazon, or almost any other place that gives the public a say is medium-to-low.

That's not a warm reception.

Sure, the appraisal could be made more accurate by adding a bunch of weasel-y qualifiers like 'some' and 'many,' but even then it would be misleading. The simple fact was that reviews were mixed, in the purest empirical way, and this should be made clear, with links to review aggregation sites so the reader can make up their own mind.--Gwilym 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So...remove it. We've got the critics opinions, we've got the box office numbers. That's plenty. --InShaneee 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my original plan, but I've seen far too many revert wars destroy lives for myeah alright I'll remove it


 * fine with me, as long as it doesnt break wikipedia style guidelines. --Beanssnaeb 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, do we have any DVD sales figures yet?--Gwilym 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * just rental figures (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=homevideo&id=silenthill.htm). i havent seen any sales figures anywhere yet. --Beanssnaeb 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 27%/0% at rotten tomatoes is not "mixed" by any stretch of the word. "Mixed" denotes roughly equal numbers of favorable and unfavorable reviews; typically something in the range of 40%-60%, or, if you're going to be super-anal, 33%-66%. 27% at rt, particularly given the cream of the crop section, simply does not qualify as "mixed".  "Generally poor" is a far more apt description. SonoftheMorning 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree, though the (usual) fervour of the positive reviews seems notable. But there's no way to say that without sounding like a weasely apologist for the film, so I guess yours is probably the best option.--Gwilym 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm, IMDB's rating is 6.5. That is not medium-low at all by IMDB's standards.  That's actually substantially above-average for most horror movies... It's basically the one place online where it WAS received particularly well. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Presumptuous plot details
I think the movie is incredibly vague, we are never told why Alessa has no father (out of wedlock, or a virgin birth?), I've never gotten that Alessa was "purified" because she was raped by the janitor, except from some flowers wilting it's never made obvious that Alessa actually is a witch with powers, most people I talk to interpret Dark Alessa as the Devil and not something created out of Alessa's mind.

Long story short, the movie doesn't explain anything (which was part why people didn't like it). So why is it every time I check back on this page there's a whole new plot synopsis with all these statements like that Dark Alessa is a self-created Doppleganger and the cult knew about the molestation and that was their reason for purifying, and all this other nonsense that the movie never even comes close to explaining?

Stick with describing what the movie shows and not your fan theories please!Rglong 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The plot of the movie is in the spirit of the games. In that you must make up your own mind about why things are the way they are.  They don't spoon feed you the answers.  There is not right or wrong answer to those questions, you must decide it for yourself.


 * Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about. The movie doesn't explain much, so the article shouldn't either.Rglong 08:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

''There was never any insinuation that Alessa was 'purified' because she was molested. I always assumed that she was was 'purified' because she was born out of wedlock. I have no idea how these assumptions regarding molestaion being the cause came about. 23:14 July 2007


 * I don't know where it came from either but earlier drafts of the plot summary outright said that's why they "purified" her.Rglong 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to call referring to Dark Alessa as a doppelganger as "fan fiction", then you're calling the entire movie fan fiction; as both the director and the actress have stated in several interviews that Dark Alessa is the manifestation of the dark side of Alessa's soul. This is a plot point that should be put on that page and kept there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessaGillespie (talk • contribs) 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "fans liked it" theory
(assuming that "fans" means "fans of the game series.")

I've seen this one a lot, but I looked into it a while back and it's simply not true.

Browsing through discussion forums, the ratio of like to dislike was around 2:3. A narrow margin, and my method of tallying the results wasn't scientific, and this isn't a citable source anyway, but that was the result.

But on the other, more encyclopedic hand - look at the published stuff. Go to RottenTomatoes. I don't remember seeing one positive review where the writer claimed to be a fan of the game and the movie, but I did see numerous comments along the lines of "the game deserved better" or "the game was a piece of art; this is not." I know IGN's reviewers didn't like it either, but I can't think of any other major gaming websites that do film reviews. But yeah. --Gwilym 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly reasonable to say critics were harder on the movie than audiences were, but not to get more specific than that. I am a fan of the game who was very disappointed with the movie when I first saw it (kind of grows on you though), but it's pretty much imossible to figure out if fans in particular liked it, and for that matter, how many reviewers are fans, unless they specifically state it somewhere in their view.  Plus I just don't see how it makes a difference.  Generally I just see a lot of critics around 30% liking it and lay people around 60%.Rglong 08:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno, there were only twenty or so people in the theatre I was in, and I got the distinct impression that I liked it the most out of any of us. And I didn't like it. Anyway, yeah, there's definitely room for debate on the issue, but none of it is encyclopaedic (or even really citeable if it was). :) --Gwilym 10:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I wanted to know: Is Rose and Sharon now dead? Is that why they can't go back to their actuall Home? Are is it like The speed they went that got them into the time zone? Could they ever go back? - [unsigned]

Silent Hill 2
Here is an article about an interview with Christophe Gans talking about a second film. Don't know if it's enough to contribute to the article or just a rumor, so I'm leaving it here for the editors of this article that know more about the subject. --Nehrams2020 07:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Red Pyramid vs Pyramid Head
Is anybody tallying how many times these have been switched around on this article? I'd be surprised if it was still only in double digits.

It's Red Pyramid. Please stop changing it!--Gwilym 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: It's credited as "Red Pyramid" in the film. In the game, it is credited as "Pyramid Head".

has someone gone through the article and made that consistant then? with things like this i find that people get confused if the same character is refered to by multiple names throughout an article--Manwithbrisk 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read a lot about this, and from what I know as a fan, it is Red Pyramid as credited in the movie. Pyramid head was not an offical name for the monster in the game, but rather accepted by both creators and fans due to the name being used so regularly.--68.238.223.57 (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)