Talk:Silent Hill (film)/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot Status as of 6/12 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Amused 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changed a bunch of stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was an exclusive to Yahoo. This happens. --Golbez 21:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on welcometosilenthill.com now. --Golbez 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank's for the update! :) captbananas 08:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officiality of Trailer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. -Tzepish 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! --Gwilym 04:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two plot summaries? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Excellent! 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Issues regarding Canon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Latest revert/P. Head scene 

message: 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)
thread_title: New Section Added, HELLPPP!!!

message: What a lame movie poster.  Ooh, yoga while blindfolded, scary!
:MSTCrow 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not supposed to be scary, it's supposed to be inspirational. --Gwilym 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Really Dumb Movie Poster 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hilarious over-wikification :D 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Writing an appraisal of this film's reception is very difficult. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Summary needed, not ENTIRE plot... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current movie poster 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Toluca Lake 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title: Relationship to the Video Games (Again)

message: 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)
thread_title: Latin Text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: DVD Cover

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  excellent job 

message: ::... 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Apparent Contradiction?  

message: 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)
replies: text: I added citations, and shrunk the trivia section. I am renominating it. Cbrown1023 01:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failing 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Give it about a week, and whatever isn't sourced properly by then gets chopped. --InShaneee 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religious section revisited

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revamping 

message: Release date                           	Country
21 April 2006                          	United States
21 April 2006                          	United Kingdom
21 April 2006                          	Ireland
21 April 2006                          	Canada
26 April 2006                          	Philippines
26 April 2006                          	Belgium
26 April 2006                          	France
27 April 2006                          	Hungary
27 April 2006                          	Greece
11 May 2006                            	Germany
11 May 2006                            	Russia
11 May 2006                            	Hong Kong
18 May 2006                            	Netherlands
18 May 2006                            	Thailand
19 May 2006                            	Estonia
26 May 2006                            	Poland
2 June 2006                            	Norway
11 June 2006                           	Singapore
7 July 2006                            	Finland
7 July 2006                            	Italy
7 July 2006                            	Mexico
8 July 2006                            	Japan
26 July 2006                           	Iceland
28 July 2006                           	Spain
18 August 2006                         	Brazil
24 August 2006                         	Bahrain
31 August 2006                         	Australia
* 2006http://www.cinesargentinos.com.ar	Argentina
:-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)
replies: text: --Did even more condensing. The article looks to be shaping up. --Beanssnaeb 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Table + Misc

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  More revamping 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks alot! GJ everyone for their work on this article! --Beanssnaeb 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks alot! GJ everyone for their work on this article! --Beanssnaeb 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The "fans liked it" theory 

message: 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)
thread_title: Silent Hill 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Red Pyramid vs Pyramid Head