MovieChat Forums > Silent Hill (2006) Discussion > Alternate explanation: toxis gas from th...

Alternate explanation: toxis gas from the coal fires under the city


I was really hoping that the movie would have a relatively simple explanation for things. There was a hint part way through about coal fires making the town uninhabitable, and why people left. I slowly formed a narrative that would have been an enjoyable twist ending.

The fires were releasing gases that were poisonous to breathe. The concentration changed over the day. The warning alarm would sound when the concentration was overly high, when people needed to get into a place with safe air to breathe. That's always when she would start to black out and the monsters would come from the walls. When the monsters would dissolve, it looked almost like coal dust glowing and floating off.

Throughout there are people in gas masks. Midway there are three people in gas masks in the building, and they have what looks like a canary in a cage. Suddenly they see the bird agitated and immediately leave the building, as if it were detecting the gas.

The religious people started the fires when they were doing the sacrifice, as it got through into the coal mines. The church they retreated to was well-sealed so that they weren't affected when the gas concentration got too high outside.

Then later they send her way down underground to that room, which would be really close to the mines. I figured maybe there she'd find some way to put out the fires, and that would solve the issue, and then the religious people would spin it.

This would have been one of those satisfying endings because everything was explained as a natural consequence of something simple.

I haven't played the games, so I watched this movie on its own terms.

reply

you'd have to rebrand Christabella as a coal mining ceo and Sharon as suffering from lung disease. Still it's remarkable how the same structure can be used for totally different genres.

reply

If that was the case, they would've had to have changed the title of the movie because then it would differ far too much from the games. The games are all about personal demons and how this town traps people in it to face their demons in order to escape. In the games, all of the monsters are symbolically based off of the main character's thoughts, desires and fears. They didn't do that for either movie which I'm sad about. They just decided to throw in whatever monsters they wanted (I still love the movie though). Like Pyramid Head, hes only in the second game because it's symbolic of the main character's guilt and anger. If they changed the movie that much, it wouldn't be silent hill.

reply

In the first game, the monsters are all representations of Alessa, not the protagonist. The exact same thing is done in the movie. Every monster in the movie is made to represent Alessa's life and/or thoughts in some way (Pyramid Head as her fear of raw masculinity, the Creepers as the cultists, the Armless Man showing how she was powerless to move or to speak after being burned, etc). Just because they don't have the same meanings as in the games does not mean they don't have a meaning at all in the movie canon.

It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.

reply

Yes, that may be true, but you kind of have to agree that they totally threw in certain monsters for fan fare, and needed a way to explain it so it wouldn't seem random in the movies. Like, Pyramid Head for example. He is exclusively a Silent Hill 2 villain and was confirmed to be a manifestation of James' feelings. They threw him in the movie because he's the most iconic monster in the series. Same can be said about Revelations and Homecoming. They all threw in Pyramid Head to get people attracted to movies/game. And also, my point stands that changing the ending like that would make it totally different from the games.

reply

This film is as much The Ring as the video game called Silent Hill.

reply

They probably did add PH because he's iconic, but since the movie is a totally different canon than the games, what he means in the games isn't important. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they added the monsters they did specifically because so many of the enemies in the first game had to be explained by going into Alessa's room and examining multiple items. They don't really have time to do stuff like that in the movie, so they put in monsters that the audience could very easily link to Alessa without needing extra scenes tacked on to explain them. For example, it's MUCH easier to see how an armless creature that can't talk and sprays acid out its chest would be a representation of Alessa's thoughts than a giant moth monster.

I never disputed your point about the changed ending. I don't dabble much in fan fiction, tbh.

It is the way of men to make monsters; and it is the nature of monsters to destroy their makers.

reply

I don't think Pyramid Head was even necessary for this movie to still be good. People who played the game knew what Pyramid Head was. Therefore they didn't like his inclusion because it felt out of place. People who never played the games had no idea who PH is and the movie never explained his role or symbolic meaning therefore they wouldn't have cared if the big monster was Pyramid Head or a completely new monster design. Myself and many others who have played the games would rather have like to see more of the janitor monster. He was original, freaky, and is a clear representation of Alessa's rape trauma.

reply

I agree. His inclusion in the movie is purely fan service.

reply

Why would the concentration change so significantly from day to night and at exactly the same time each night though?

Also, why would the main character and the cop both have the same hallucinations/dreams?

reply

The progression was the same: thing start melting, monsters come out, then they black out and wake up OK. The apparent night seemed to be part of their hallucination.

This narrative doesn't explain everything, but my point is that it's more satisfying because it explains a lot with just a little from the real world (at least to me, movies with a simple premise from which everything flows are very satisfying). The actual narrative of the movie is a mess of arbitrary things piled on each other, which to me is unsatisfying and forced.

reply

Oh yeah I get what you're saying. It would've been a nice "twist." I'm just wondering if there's a way to explain everything in a way that fits with your idea, because some of the things (like shared hallucinations for example) seem like they would still give it a supernatural edge anyway.

reply

I doubt it could explain much after a certain point in the movie. Before that, it could almost explain it, with some glossing over to cover the shared hallucinations (maybe they could have said the people had known each other or were related by family). But once they started to study the past, there was too much to explain (though the townspeople becoming superstitious and religious fanatics could still have been the coal). It was wishful thinking on my part heh.

reply

Basically every viewer who hadn't heard of the video games said Oh they were dead the whole time.

reply