Talk:Silent Hill (film)/Archive 2

Legend of the Overfiend
Can we get some verification on this? Cited influences by Gans or some other person-in-charge on the movie? I only ask because, while they both do gore well, SH seems to do it with a touch more class than the Urutsokidojo series. 63.88.67.230 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * he mentioned it in a Dvdrama interview. I have referenced it accordingly. Beanssnaeb


 * And there you have it. Thanks for the reference, despite the icky(yeah, I know I'm being horridly POV, forgive me). 63.88.67.230 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work!
A fantastic and thorough plot description! Good work all! SilentHylian 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, though I don't like the last sentence. Aside from the fact that it's not the only possible interpretation, the fact that it's an interpretation at all is out of place. Come to think of it, I don't think the word 'obvious' should ever appear in a Wikipedia article. It's kind of a nebulous, subjective word.--Gwilym 10:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: IMDb Silent Hill FAQ/wiki
Not sure if you're all aware but the IMDB has recently started a User-Edited FAQ Feature for each of the films featured on the site. I originally tried to provide short, accurate answers in keeping with Gans statements, much in the same way this site provides an accurate plot synopsis.

However..

Since that time, two very active trolls have been editing the FAQ to include all sorts of ludicrous supposition about the film, like "Dark Alessa really is a demon, much like the cult suspected!" and "Dark Alessa is supposed to be Xuchilbara, Spirit of the Mists*!" and "In the end it is clear that Rose and Sharon have died and are in heaven!" If anyone has any interest (and a registered, authenticated IMDb Account), could you please assist me in either reverting to my edits (same user-name, SilentHylian) or providing your own that keep the factually-accurate version of the movie everyone here seems committed to? See here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0384537/faq

Thanks in advance. SilentHylian 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This phrase in itself ("Spirit of the Mists") is a reference to the user's fan-fiction, written after the release of the film.


 * Does this really have a place the wikipedia? sorry to hear people are screwing up your faq, but please, this is for discussion on the silent hill wikipedia article.. --Beanssnaeb 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, this is no place to whore a collaborative fan FAQ from another site. A link to the Silent Hill IMDB is all that is needed, people can discover the FAQ on their own while there. - [unsigned]


 * Yeah, we're busy whoring our own collaborative fan FAQ here! - [anon]

Grey children
The article states that the grey children are 'very similar to the mumblers' from the first game. They grey children were in the original version of the game but were replaced with mumblers in the PAL version. The only difference is that they don't have their knives in the film. I tried to fix but people revert my edits. 193.63.48.253 16:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe try to get a reference to the replacement and it'll be more likely to not be reverted? --Beanssnaeb 15:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're absolutely right, the grey children's designs were modified because they were thought to be too disturbing, because they didn't want players to be shooting at little kids in a video game. The entire story is all laid out in the Lost Memories website if you need a reference.Rglong 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous song used in movie
On the part where they go to Dahlia's house, they played a song I've heard for years on scary/horror movie trailers, but I don't know what song it is or where it comes from. It's basically a child's voice singing four high notes, like latin or something. Kamikaze Highlander 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This board is for discussing the Silent Hill (film) article. General question like these are meant for something like the IMDb boards. --Beanssnaeb 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've heard it again on the trailer for the remake of the Omen. It's in the middle when he asks the priest what he knows about his son.  This means Ring of Fire isn't the only song in the movie not from the game's score. http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/theomen/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamikaze Highlander (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * As Beassnaeb said, we don't care. This is not the place for chatter like that. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Braham or Brahams?
Wasn't the name of this town consistent between the game(s) and the film, and called "Braham?" Yes, it's a misspelling, and probably the result of a transliteration error from Japanese. Nevertheless, that's what I recall the town's name being. I don't have the DVD to provide a cite though. Anyone else? --Boradis 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's Brahams. I'll sweep the article to make sure there are no mistakes. --Beanssnaeb 03:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The town is spelled "Brahms" in the game. They probably just changed the spelling in the movie to logically match the pronunciation.Rglong 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Released from custody
"Upon discovering that the road out of the town has mysteriously disappeared, however, Cybil allows her to go free and the two work side-by-side to survive in the hellish town." No. She runs off while Cybil is busy with a creature, and she spends the next 15 minutes of the film in handcuffs. Not until Cybil later rescues her in the school does she take off the handcuffs and they begin to work together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.84.43 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews"
Come on. Most films described on wikipedia that have favourable Metacritic and RT ratings are a little more verbose about the meaning of the percentages. Here they are given dryly, and followed by a statement that the film received "mixed reviews". It would be a lot more honest to say that the film received mostly negative reviews, and then contrast it with praise for the single performance. That sentence would also read more sensibly that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.84.43 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Contra Code
The famous Konami contra code was referenced when they were checking the map, it could be a coincidence, but it hardly felt so.


 * No, god no. Thank god they didn't go that far.  She only memorizes the turns she has to take - rights and lefts.  There're no ups, downs, B's, A's, selects or starts in what she's saying.Rglong 02:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

About the remastered DVD release..
I saw the note about an HD-DVD/DVD combo release and the interview that was cited, but shouldn't it be noted that Silent Hill is published by Sony Pictures and Sony Pictures does not support HD-DVD? Super Saiyan Musashi 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * the HD DVD will likely be released by Metropolitan Filmexport or Davis Films. --Beanssnaeb 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging SH2
With the lack of news pertaining to Silent Hill 2, a merge to this article might be best for the time being. Any objections? --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 19:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge. I have no objections.  The stand-alone article can be recreated when there is actual production activity, such as having a cast and a production start date in place. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Film has been green-lighted and thus article will only be expanded over time.  No need to just create the work of re-creating it again in the future.  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Silent Hill 2 is an independent film in its own right. The proposal of merging and then recreating it at a later time is pointless and simply redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.107.154 (talk • contribs) 18:14, July 16, 2007
 * Comment: In response to the two editors who oppose the merge, I'd like to explain the nature of the film industry. Projects will often be announced (like Silent Hill 2 has), but they are not always guaranteed to enter actual production.  The industry is rife with examples of films that have taken an extraordinary long time to produce as well as films that have never been produced.  Batman Begins and Superman Returns were not made until years after their predecessors.  The following are films that were announced (with the years of announcement included) but still have not entered production: Area 51 (2004), Captain America (2000), Clash of the Titans (2002), Death and Me (2002), Deathlok (2001), Ender's Game (2002), Gemini Man (2000), G.I. Joe (2003), The Giver (1994), He-Man (2004), Hot Wheels (2003), The Lightning Thief (2004), Master of Space and Time (2004), Nick Fury (2005), Paradise Lost (2005), Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2004), Rendezvous with Rama (1997), Ronin (1998), Shazam! (2002), Sub-Mariner (2004), Terminator 4 (2003), Thor (2000), and Y: The Last Man (2003).  The fact is, there is no indication that there is actual production activity on Silent Hill 2, and based on the nature of the industry, there may not be any for a while if ever.  Like I've said, it can be recreated if it enters actual production -- not when, if.  The projects I've listed are still stuck in development hell.  The problem is that when a film has its own article, there's an illusion that the film will exist.  Look at the available information and not the article's existence.  Some projects uncertain to enter production rest just fine in places like these: X-Men film series, Spider-Man film series, Logan's Run, Knight Rider (2008 film, World of Warcraft, Onimusha (series) (another Gans project, actually), and Spy Hunter.  I urge you to reconsider the chances of production for SH2 based on the available information about the film and the trend of the industry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to ComingSoon.net, "Roger Avary... said that he won't be doing a sequel to the video game adaptation since director Christophe Gans is not on board." These stalls happen.  It seems more appropriate to merge now than ever, considering that this project isn't anywhere near fast-tracked for production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ric | opiaterein 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to the source article's retraction Avary states that the production is NOT IN TROUBLE.  STRONGLY OPPOSE.WikiTracker 06:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've come across the notability guideline for films, which says in regard to future films: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." This should be a standard to follow, considering that the lack of a writer or director makes Silent Hill 2 nowhere near the start of shooting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: Until the film gets a new writer and director and actual pre production begins, it should be merged. --Beanssnaeb 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Pointless. Firstly, how do we know that the sequel is even going to have anything to do with the original, besides the same setting?  And with that, does that really bring reason to put it in an article that would be somewhat unrelated to it?  I think its lacking a director at the moment is irrelevant, it's still going forward without one.  And we don't know that there isn't a writer at all.  The article is going to be there sooner or later....  And probably sooner rather than later, seeing as things seemed to be going as far as December last year.  72.206.97.34


 * Comment: Can you suggest a better place for the content to be merge? Also, your speculation about the project's progress is just that -- speculation.  Also, please read the notability guidelines for films, which says that an article should not be created until production is underway.  We have no idea when production will start, and we certainly can't guess when it will "probably" start with zero basis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not speculation. The article itself already says it's going to continue IN DEVELOPMENT.  How often do we hear about films in the development phase?  We have no signs so far that it isn't going to happen and a couple that it is.  How is that not good enough?


 * And it's speculation that the writer and director who have said they won't be a part of it are the only ones who've been in mind or involved with the project while it's been in development. There's no sign that this movie isn't going to happen.72.206.97.34 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Silent Hill 2 is a film in its own right, it like saying merge Die Hard 1 with 2, it'd be pointless, and harder to find informationAnt parker 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge: Right now virtually no info on this film exists. For all we know it could end up in perpetual development hell; it leaves one more stub for us to worry about. For now this needs to be merged into the SH1 movie article, then once sufficient verifiable info is released, it can be split back into its own. L337 kybldmstr 09:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge. I am a Silent Hill fan so dont consider me a delete-happy hater, but there isn't enough information for Silent Hill 2 to have its own article.  Once its production is publicized, then it would be appropriate, but not now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyguy49 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Don't see any reason against it and it is a short article. If it appears to be drastically different later on just move it back to it's own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gone923 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)