Talk:Silent Hill (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Silent Hill (film) article.
Article policies
Good article Silent Hill (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Template:Spoiler

Archive
Archives
/Archive1 on October 11, 2006


A fantastic summary of the plot! Good work all! SilentHylian 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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.[1] --Nehrams2020 07:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

Yeah, we're busy whoring our own collaborative fan FAQ here!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 CitrouillesTally-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#Future, Spider-Man film series#Future, Logan's Run#Remake, Knight Rider#Film adaptation, World of Warcraft#Film adaptation, Onimusha (series)#Film adaptation (another Gans project, actually), and Spy Hunter#Film adaptation. 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)
  • Comment: According to the source article's retraction [2] 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)

[edit] Plot 'synopsis.'

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)

[edit] Redirect

Linking from the Silent Hill 2 video game to Silent Hill (film) and Silent Hill 2 (film) lead to the same page. I read the discussion, and understand that the Silent Hill 2 (film) article was short, however to avoid confusion, I think that the pages should be split again, even if the page is short. It's very confusing to click on a link to the Silent Hill 2 (film) and end up on the page of the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.77.249 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On relationship to video game

Yes, this is a film somewhat loosely based on a series of videogames. Mention of this fact is made throughout the article, and appropriate links to the source material exist. That makes sense for an online encyclopedia to mention. What does not make sense is the presence of some eleven paragraphs of trivia comparing specific scenes or characters in the games to those in the film. Wikipedia is not a compilation of random trivia. Unless the material is somehow notable inasmuch as it relates to the film's production itself, there is no rationale for the inclusion of this material. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)