Talk:Silent Hill (film)

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Even though the Plot section is very long, as already noticed, there are some details missing. First of all, the Sharon-alike with whom Rose talks at the end isn't quite what is described - "goodness took Sharon's likeness and led Rose through her journey". First of all, Rose goes to visit "the demon" and finds her, while Christabella told her before that "demon hides behind the face of a child" (or something like that). And finally, when Rose asks her who is she, she told she has "many names" - which can mean only one thing, that she is indeed Satan, because the Devil is often described as one with many names. For what I understood, Sharon is actually "the manifestation of Alessa's innocence", not the duplicate which indeed led Rose through her journey (not one person for both statements, but two different ones). I must admit this part about what exactly is Sharon is confusing to me, especially because it is not clearly stated who are her parents. Is Alessa her mother? She was badly burned, so couldn't normally bear a child, but it could be possible Sharon is a child of Alessa and Satan, which would be a mystical occurence so not limited by the above mentioned. Anyway, it is not clearly stated in the film, and the closest thing to explanation was that she was indeed Alessa's "good part".
The whole Plot section could indeed take some rewriting, so I guess I'm going to mark it accordingly. I hope someone could clarify the confusing details I've mentioned above and merge it into the section in accordance to the established facts instead of speculation...
Arny (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot be downright sure what exactly happens at the end, as neither the film nor any official source explicitly explain the end. There is a clash of opinions here, as many theories float around; for example, one repeatedly added in the "Plot" section by various people is that Rose and Sharon remain in the alternate dimension, but since it cannot be supported by the film itself or anything official, it is blatant original research. Hula Hup (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors and omissions in the Plot section 

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

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

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

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

message: Uh, so sorry that I did not respond to "Arny"'s query directly and sooner. His confusion is that simply he's not familiar with classical references in myth and horror genre. Rose da Silva's adopted daughter Sharon da Silva is obviously a "changeling" (a demon "doppelganger" culled from the remains of Alessa's destroyed "innocence", sent to replace the absent, or alleged "dead" original personage). The "many-named demon" that led both Rose and police Sgt.Cybil Bennet on its merry chase simply disguised itself as Sharon to facilitate its ends. The prostrated, eternally immolated original Alessa, who has aged since her attack was not allowed to die by the demon, in keeping with the Faustian promise to send her tormentors to Hell, was used by the latter as both a template for the "soulless" changeling Sharon; its own, deceptive image as "Sharon", and the "generator" for the "limbo" dimension of Silent Hill. In other words, "Silent Hill" was forged as a hellish "holding station" of Alessa rage-filled wish-fulfillment until the Devil could forcibly resolve the conundrum of the cultists' power to debilitate it. That solution was, again, as the Demon revealed was Rose's own choice to love unconditionally what she thought was the abandoned little girl she and her husband adopted. The Demon's solution was simply to have Rose choose again, to sacrifice anything to save her child. This act of unsullied, selfless humanity and loving sacrifice was the antithetical power the Demon needed to circumvent the cultists' spiritual barrier and enter their sanctuary. On this last point, the theme should be obvious to all: The vampire's prohibition from entering a mortal abode without being invited; the Devil not able to influence a mortal without a collusive "pact" of some sort. The evil intent of any entity to wreck destruction or discord when "good" is somehow blindsided or unaware of its presence (think Iago and Othello). --67.86.96.129 (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy, Am I Ever Remiss ... 

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

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

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

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

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

message: For "Reception":
*  Hula Hup (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested sources

message: According to the commentary by the director on the French Metropolitan DVD, Sharon and Alessa (who he outright states are the manifestations of the good and bad sides of Alessa's soul) fused into one incarnation of Alessa at the end of the movie. I'm not sure how to put that without it being erased though, since it comes from a commentary and not an online source. Any suggestions?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.122.181 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You could check out American Beauty (film). The "Mendes & Ball 2000" footnotes are tied to a DVD commentary reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD commentary 

message: In December 2006, Christophe Gans confirmed that a sequel was "officially ordered and well on the way." Gans later pulled out and production was delayed for various reasons though Roger Avary initially signed on to write the script.Interview: christophe gans (silent hill) partie 1Roger Avary jailed for tweeting
According to producer Don Carmody, the sequel would be more accessible to the movie-going public: "Silent Hill is not a blockbuster game like Resident Evil or the other games out there. It's a connoisseurs' game. It has its own, rabid fan base. They're not cheap, these things. You have to appeal not only to the gamers, you have to appeal to a wider audience." Carmody also stated the film would be set "years later" with the main character "much older."
In November 2010, it was confirmed that Michael J. Bassett would direct the sequel, titled Silent Hill: Revelation 3D. It would center on Heather Mason (a character taken from Silent Hill 3) when she starts having nightmares that lead her to Silent Hill and the mystery of her father's disappearance. Bassett revealed he had written his own screenplay, apparently replacing Roger Avary. He added that he would bring back as many of the core creative team as he could from the first film to keep its look and feel but add "more darkness and fear into the mix as well". Filming began in March 2011.
The section here just needs a short summary - what when by whom with what effect. --Niemti (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff that might be better used in the sequel's article 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Silent Hill (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/silenthill/productiondiary/archives/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413153435/http://silenthill.ugo.com/features/realsilenthill/default.asp to http://silenthill.ugo.com/features/realsilenthill/default.asp
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68D7S1pfU?url=http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6605116 to http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=6605116&publicUserId=1002415
*Added  tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/2151/silent-hill-begins-production
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007185326/http://www.ecranlarge.com/interview-282.php to http://www.ecranlarge.com/interview-282.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912090529/http://horror.about.com/od/movierelated/a/int_sh_gans.htm to http://horror.about.com/od/movierelated/a/int_sh_gans.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604070720/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2006/04/12/2006-04-12_read_my_lips___a_film_poster.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2006/04/12/2006-04-12_read_my_lips___a_film_poster.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

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