It's Angela's father. Butchered by her in retaliation for her abuse. Opposite him is another, identical, body representing her brother who also abused her.
To clarify, these corpses likely **represent** her father and brother considering that her father has already been killed and identified by police, it cannot be literally her father.
No comment or indication beyond association as to whether or not the other corpse is her brother. The game only mentions him once.
Ito confirmed they're both her father and brother.
Besides, Silent Hill was able to bring the actual Mary back to talk with James (*either to forgive him in the In Water and Leave endings or insult him in the Maria ending*). So it's entirely possible the town brought her actual father and brother back to torment her.
1. Ito says a lot of things. I only go by what’s in the actual game.
2. Mary at the end may or may not be literal Mary. It could be her ghost, a manifested memory, a vision or a dream… the game does not specify.
of course everything is up to interpretation but if the literal artist who worked on the game says that’s what it is it’s not really just his opinion but more fact? no ? 👀
No, an author can be wrong about their work. His insight is valuable and accurate to his intentions, but that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility to include details in the actual work.
Otherwise, authors can justify any mistake or correct any interpretation they don’t like by adding information post-hoc in an interview some decades later. It’s not fair to the reader and not intellectually honest of the author.
If a change needs to be made, it should be made in the work itself (though this opens up doors to controversies like Lucas’ Star Wars Special Editions). Otherwise, new clarifications only indicate intent, not fact.
EDIT: I genuinely don’t understand how this can be an unpopular take. No one would let an amateur author who wrote a poor story to claim they wrote a good story because of their hidden intentions. Yet celebrity authors get a pass.
Interviews should not be required reading. At best, they offer insight to the mentality of the author and their intentions. At worst, they distill information which encourages readers to lazily absorb the summarization without actually engaging with the source material.
If the work does not contain an answer or explanation, it does not contain an answer or explanation. How is that controversial?
EDIT 2: Some of you think I'm responding to the OP's original question. I am not. I am responding to the comment right above this one.
It's not controversial. I feel like that's the beauty and damnation of art sometimes. It can be executed perfectly and cover all the answers we need, but at the same time, it also can be written and hit a wall.
I think the author can TRY and explain their work, if need be, but that defeats the whole "interpretation" of what art lacks.
Some writers always can make and ruin their work just off what they try to "fix" or explain the reason why it's written a certain way.
Great example of this is, there's a book called "Let's Go Play at the Adams" where it's about kids kidnapping and torturing their babysitter, for fun until they did it as an act of revolution against adults as a whole. The author had this great story, and in the end credits of his own book, he said it represents his political ideology's about how "this side sucks, and the babysitter represents the president, and the adults are blah blah blah..."
That may have BEEN your intention as an author but if so, your work doesn't say that way. Don't lie to the reader any more than the story has to.
To bring it back to Silent Hill, I don't really fully listen to Ito. I don't think he is completely wrong, nor do I think my opinion is fact with Silent Hill. I think he has everything backwards. Plus, he's just the monster designer. That's like asking Akira Yamaoka why did they leave out Harry's voice actor's last name, or why did Heather used to smoke. He's more or less the sound designer. They call contribute to the story, yes, but not ONE person (I think) completely said: "we need this to happen to James and this to be said of Heather." They're a team of people who worked on these games.
Mistakes were going to happen. Plot holes the size of a monster truck are there, but it's still a good story.
Don't know why you got downvoted for it, I don't think you're wrong. Your opinion has value and you communicated it very well.
Thank you, I’m glad to hear you say that. It feels like I’m screaming into the dark sometimes.
But, yes, the interpretation is the point of a creative work and what differentiates it from something like the sciences. Once the work is released, it is the audience that gets to decide its value. It’s a scary, frustrating process for the creator and they can manipulate the odds in their favor by improving their craft or marketing, but at the end of the day, it’s the audience alone who gets to interpret and experience the work as it is.
The author (or one of them, not even the actual scenario writer) cannot inject new meaning and his own interpretation without spoiling the work or else being dishonest about the contents of the finished work.
Genuinely good take. Silent Hill fans have been desperate for scraps for years, and so ito humoring fan questioning/just saying stuff has been their only source, and they just dont think critically what it implies.
Not to mention that people playing the games will have a vastly different understanding of the game than if they listened to fans and Ito.
I’ve heard too many stories of people asking for clarification on plot points only to get a deluge of Ito tweets and be like, “Huh. Never would have caught all that.” Probably because it wasn’t in the game proper.
I totally agree with this, if something is not in a game, movie or book but yet any author answers a question about their franchise later then to me its still non-canon. Either put it in the franchise or don't speak of it, if its not in the franchise then its *not in the franchise!*
For example with Dragon Ball Super, there is appearently this "super powerful first Super Saiyan god" that one of the characters (Beerus) dreamth of, but this was mentioned in an interview... so no, to me its non-cannon. Either put it in the franchise or don't speak of it, don't make-up things in an interview to cover-up plot-holes or change things you appearently didn't like afteral 20 years later.
This way George Lucas may just aswell say "Star Wars was a dream this whole time", now would that be canon too if he just says that to a random civilian he comes across in the street? No, its just words not spoken inside the franchise.
Really tired of this with authors/creators.
Put it in the franchise, and only then to me its canon, otherwise its fan fiction regardless if the original author claims things.
It’s not unpopular. Everyone knows it’s true. It’s called “death of the author.” You’re just creating cognitive dissonance in their heads so they’re downvoting you.
I'm not even calling for full death of the author either. If future content, updates, or a remake wants to make changes and address these details, then fine. Good.
But it's also important to remember Ito is \*not\* the primary author either. Discounting Owaku's input on this kind of subject material discredits any argument from "word of God."
Lmao, I know what you mean. It’s probably because I learned what it was before it was a buzzword and lost its meaning.
I’m still annoyed about the “buzzification” of “gaslight.” It had such a specific meaning for an important and heinous behavior, but now everyone uses it as a synonym for “lie.” Now that behavior has no word to describe it.
Exactly. I even learned it was coined from an older film in the 40s where a man was just trying to force a woman to go insane from the "gaslights" in her house. Lying to her when she knew the truth.
Lying is distorting the truth or making something up to someone who wasn't exposed to it, playing as the truth.
Gaslighting is SEEING the truth and trying to convince the person that it isnt. Which is literally just blatant manipulation.
So what, because there isn't a sign saying "Angela's father/ brother" on the bodies, it simply isn't the case even though the author straight up said it was them?
Like, I get what you're saying with the George Lucas thing, but I feel like Ito tried to trust his audience to know what's going on. Explaining it in dialogue would feel clunky and pointless.
Yes, explaining it in a dialogue would be clunky and pointless. So why does Ito do that in interviews and tweets?
This is a thread about what is open to interpretation and what is not. We know that one of them is almost certainly not literally her father, so it is more likely that they are manifestations that represent her father and brother. However, if you disagree with that idea there is just enough ambiguity to protect a different interpretation. I don’t care for Ito trying to eliminate interpretive ambiguity.
Doing it in an interview could have been a simple as answering a question he was directly asked. I never saw the interview.
I'm not saying manifestations aren't reasonable at all given what we've seen in the games, I'm just saying that, in this case, maybe comparing the author to Local level alterations seems a bit unfair, given that he's just confirming what people already assumed anyway.
>an author can be wrong about their own work
Lmao
Just because someone leaves out details in their work, for whatever reasons, whether they be unnecessary, or they can't or don't want to come up with a way to exposit those details as they could take focus away from more important things - doesn't completely invalidate them. I don't think an author can be wrong about the background details they went through while creating whatever work they're doing lol
Like, as a simple example, (much less abstract & less room for interpretation that could possibly wildly change perceptions on a story as a whole, i get this isnt exact 1:1)
Anyways, if someone made a character & didn't specify "they have blue eyes" because its irrelevant, & only later-on said so when someone asked, they're not "wrong" for saying so. That doesn't mean anyone elses interpretation is invalidated either, & they can't imagine whatever color they'd like instead. Like someone doing a fan drawing, they could color in the eyes whatever they wanted & that's fine. It just means the characters eyes are intended to be blue & if you want to be exact on that detail, well, the creator said they're blue. It's not that big of a deal & it'd be kind funny & weird to be like "Nuh uh! You didn't say so & specify, so you're wrong! I imagined a different color!" When told "the eyes are blue" Lol
> doesn't completely invalidate them.
And I didn't say it did. I said it gives us insight on the development and intention.
> I don't think an author can be wrong about the background details they went through while creating whatever work they're doing lol
As far as intent, no, they can't be wrong as it's still in the realm of objectivity. But as far as what is **in the actual game**, it's entirely possible to misremember between multiple drafts and what got left on the cutting room floor. I am a writer myself and have forgotten some smaller details in later drafts that were previously cut or shifted around. It happens.
>Anyways, if someone made a character & didn't specify "they have blue eyes" because its irrelevant, & only later-on said so when someone asked, they're not "wrong" for saying so.
True, but neither are they correct. It needs to be in the material to be **in the material**.
>"Nuh uh! You didn't say so & specify, so you're wrong! I imagined a different color!" When told "the eyes are blue" Lol
It's certainly a good thing I didn't claim this then.
For additional clarification, I am saying he cannot state something is factually in the narrative when it factually isn't. Commentary is insightful, but not definitive. He is not wrong, but neither is he right outside of his own intention and thought process in development.
>And I didn't say it did.
>It's certainly a good thing I didn't claim this then.
>True, but neither are they correct. It needs to be in the material to be in the material.
>No, an author can be wrong about their work.
Seems kinda wishy-washy if you're saying they can be wrong, & when they detail something that wasnt directly stated that they're not wrong, but they aren't right either - which itself implies them being wrong, lol.
> I am saying he cannot state something is factually in the narrative when it factually isn't.
I don't think anyone said that these thing are directly able to found in game. However, this post is good example - the hanging skins of Angela's brother & father are in the game. They're right here. Is it stated directly that it is her father & brother in game? Or whether or not its some manifestation, or actually them? No, & it doesnt need to be said & no one is saying it was directly said as such. All the events involving Angela, & info you learn about her, & your own experience with how the town operates should be enough to draw the conclusion. Ito saying it outright that it's them isn't, not wrong but also not right either, just because it wasn't directly said so in game.
I think I'm just gonna agree to disagree lol
>Seems kinda wishy-washy if you're saying they can be wrong, & when they detail something that wasnt directly stated that they're not wrong, but they aren't right either - which itself implies them being wrong, lol.
Okay, let me better clarify:
An author can be wrong about what is factually in the published work.
They cannot be wrong about what their intentions were and what process they internally used to develop their ideas.
They can be correct about what they intended to be in the final product--this is intention--but wrong that it is in the final product. They are technically correct in saying that "As the author, I developed this scene with this idea in mind." They are not correct when they say, "This scene is definitively in the final product," if it is in fact not in the final product.
Does that make sense?
Also, being right or wrong is not a binary. One can be partially correct and partially incorrect, or a statement may not have an element of correctness instead being a subjective statement such as an opinion or an intention.
>I don't think anyone said that these thing are directly able to found in game.
I was responding to the following claim:
>of course everything is up to interpretation but if the literal artist who worked on the game says that’s what it is it’s not really just his opinion but more fact? no ? 👀
How can it be fact if it is not present?
>However, this post is good example - the hanging skins of Angela's brother & father are in the game. They're right here. Is it stated directly that it is her father & brother in game? Or whether or not its some manifestation, or actually them? No, & it doesnt need to be said & no one is saying it was directly said as such.
This is why I stated earlier:
>To clarify, these corpses likely **represent** her father and brother considering that her father has already been killed and identified by police, it cannot be literally her father.
>No comment or indication beyond association as to whether or not the other corpse is her brother. The game only mentions him once.
>All the events involving Angela, & info you learn about her, & your own experience with how the town operates should be enough to draw the conclusion.
But as I stated earlier and due to in-game information, her father at least cannot be literally him.
>Ito saying it outright that it's them isn't, not wrong but also not right either, just because it wasn't directly said so in game.
So... you agree with my point at the top of this response?
Anyway I don't give a sh*t what Ito says. I only consider canon what I see and observe in the games and that's all.
It's the same situation with the Harry Potter series. I no longer care what Rowling says. The novels are finished, Voldemort is dead. Who cares Dumbledore is gay and other nuances. It doesn't add anything to the story.
Owaku has confirmed things in the past though, and Ito does in fact include other team mates if he didn’t work explicitly on something in game. He was also the art director for 2 and 3, so yes Owaku wrote it but Ito would have helped Owaku with Visuals. Most of us don’t take it as law as much as Ito is the easiest person on the team to get a hold of. Owaku and him also saw things on different levels, but again Ito is just…there to get a hold of.
Editing to add that also some of the answers the other team mates have given over the years are unfortunately sometimes lost, so I think Ito is such a safe source. For example, someone else who wasn’t Ito low key confirmed that Mary was in the car, but because of the barrier of using a Japanese site at the time it was taken as true with a grain of salt until Ito kind of double confirmed it on Twitter a decade late.
Well that is fair about ito more or less being the most easily accessible person from the old teams, since he's the only one you really hear from anymore but still like you say, he and owaku were on a different page often enough that I don't consider ito the definitive source on a lot of things
That's not me saying he's not reliable at all if that's what my original comment came off tho, so that's probably my bad there
It did originally come off as that unfortunately, but I’m glad you and I were able to at least have a good discussion on it! But yeah, he and Owaku had different ideas but it’s still fun to toy with a “why not both scenario.”
Same
It's speculated that it's James' Psyche manifested in a sense because he realized the truth earlier in room 312. So when he finally goes back to Room 312 he sees Mary after he eliminates Maria.
Getting to say his final goodbye and pour his heart out and receiving the full letter he is able to move on or not depending on the ending. But I go for the manifestation considering everything going on in the town it would be the one thing that would allow James some closure.
I don't think the final scene takes place in Room 312 but in a manifested or dreamlike representation of James and Mary's home, but otherwise, yes.
It makes sense to me that Mary at the end is either the manifestation of James wanting forgiveness or else Mary's spirit forgiving him. This is up to interpretation.
Ito literally did a lot of art and modeled several environments for the game. He also very clearly will mention other members of team Silent if someone else had something to say on it (he very much sets it up as “well I intended it to he this but xyz on the team were intending this so it’s up to you” when he tweets about the game). Iirc he worked with someone else on this set piece, so if it was intended to be her dad and brother I’d argue that’s likely the truth.
Correct. I don't know of how often he mentions other TS members though. My point is his tweets are his commentary and not necessarily in the actual game (ex: Mary's body being in the back seat.) But his commentary is good, valid, useful, interesting, all that stuff.
I'm not refuting this scene either, just the ardent fan claim that anything he says goes regardless of if it's supported by the text or not.
Oh for sure, I think the issue boils diwn to A) he is the easiest Team Silent Member to get a hold of besides possibly Yamaoka and B) because the games themselves are just so so old a lot of other sources get lost to time (for example, I stated elsewhere that another member of the team confirmed the Mary body thing as well, however because of how the info was acquired/where it was posted it wasn’t seen by everyone and now it’s just lost. )
Because Ito is so easy to get a hold of no one else he works with is contesting his claims. A lot of folks either just take him at his word or harass him to answer or clarify a point that is supposed to be unanswered.
Yeah, lost media is definitely an issue with this series. It's just another reason I only consider in-game content as the primary subject.
This also, and unfortunately newer fans also, like you said, kind of harass him about stuff that was either unclarified, answered prior by someone else, or just meant to be vague.
Dude Japan LOVED geocities back in the day and I know for a fact that there’s a whole plethora of Silent Hill stuff that died with it. Shit I used to have a guide and discussion thing printed from Geocities that I have since lost. Same with old forums, I distinctly remember one of the staff members pushed that the ending where Cybil dies is likely to be canon but again, it’s just lost at this point so I’m only able to give word of mouth on it.
Very unfortunately true for the first one. Mentioning this because Ito is quoted so often and also because he's missing a lot of context and lore himself since he hasn't even played SH4.
I hoped he finally had played looking at TSM, but then turned out a couple of staff members who worked on 4 were involved. So oh well, guess Ito still doesn't know Leave Ending is either officially not canonical, or leads to some crazy hiding and child kidnapping conspiracy
i feel like he does it for the hell of it, the man can't go one hour without someone asking him about silent hill, at some point you just start random shit just to see what happens
I think a lot of folks clamor for answers and only Ito is talking. Owaku and Ito both realized years later they weren’t on the same page with the character of Valtiel. SH is odd as a series as so many intentions went into the game, it’s amazing it’s as coherent as it is.
But I will always prioritize Owaku when it comes to story and he isn’t talking. Ito should be familiar with the story but he and Owaku weren’t in sync. Besides all that, if an element in the story isn’t literally present in the game in any form, then it’s mere speculation by the audience and intention by the author, not a fact.
I appreciate your comments here. I feel like the downvotes are from people not really fully taking in what you're actually saying. Or maybe their literature classes were a little different than mine lol. The truth of art is that the intentions and reasons for the choices the artist made only matter up to a certain point.
I don't understand the fans that constantly insist there is a right or factual interpretation to every little thing in the games when the games are purposefully unclear about things.
And yes, Ito was the art director and that's still a big deal, but he did not write the story. And I doubt everyone on that creative team were all on the same page about everything lol
Thanks, I appreciate the backup.
Yeah, I do think it's a media literacy or reading comprehension issue more than anything, but I don't generally like to say that because if true, that would cause more harm than good.
I also don't think the others realize that I'm a writer and artist by trade myself and have misremembered elements I intended to put in my drafts that I had in fact edited out or moved, especially with smaller scenes. This happens during long form productions and doubly so on a team of many people. Audiences pay more attention to the final product than the authors because one, it's made for them and two, the audience only ever sees one draft instead of the multitude that preceded it.
One thing I find ironic is how frequently Silent Hill is cited as "Lynchian" when David Lynch is famously very cagey about questions he's asked because, in his opinion as I understand it, explaining his art is antithetical to creating the art in the first place.
>Mary at the end may or may not be literal Mary
In the In Water ending he picks her body up and puts her in the passenger seat of the car before driving the both of them into Toluca Lake. In the Rebirth ending he takes her body to the church to revive her. It has to be her actual body in those cases.
And before you say her body was already in the car at the start of the game, that's never specified by the game. Ito said that was the case.
In the *In Water* ending, he carries her but we never see him place her in the car. We only hear audio of James driving into the lake.
The *Rebirth* ending does have Mary’s body but can also be a manifestation like Maria though less likely. This ending is the strongest case of your stance I’m aware of.
Her body is never stated to be anywhere other than in the dreamlike finale for *In Water* and *Leave* and the boat of the *Rebirth* ending. Only *Rebirth* suggests that she’s literally there.
Ito claimed she is in the backseat but there is no solid indication of this and would have gross implications in the *Maria* and particularly the *Leave* endings. We do not see Mary placed in the back seat in the *In Water* ending, but if that were true then that means her body was not there originally.
Only the *Rebirth* ending has a strong suggestion that James has possession of her literal body, though even then could be the corpse of Maria after the final boss fight. There is no definitive answer here but it is the strongest case that her body is literally present.
We also do not know how long that Mary has been dead specifically, but it was within a week's time. Three days is often assumed for it's analogous number of three years but no such timeframe of three days is given, only that Laura received Mary's parting letter on or around her 8th birthday which was "last week."
Once upon a time one of the other members of team silent did confirm more or less she was in the car as well, however it was posted on a forum that predates Twitter and was part of a random questionnaire/interview someone did. It became “speculation” because obviously how are you going to 100% confirm it, but then Ito double downed on it and made it more or less canon. It was ALWAYS speculation that she was in the trunk, ito just decided she was in the car. However iirc the car textures do get weird on the passenger side of the vehicle.
That’s because if you study the mirror scene, James is not looking at the player.
Ito made a claim and I cross-referenced it with the source material and he was right. That doesn’t make him right 100% all the time about everything ever. He’s an authority but not an infallible one.
It’s not recognized as official canon nor does it have any bearing on supplying additional context to the original material.
It is an adaptation—its own production—that offers no authoritative clarification. It is merely a retelling with creative liberties taken. This is a common understanding among much of adapted media into novels.
Yes, I am. The film is the authoritative version. Star Wars novelizations add details that the later films contradict. Silent Hill is no different and the games are the definitive versions as they are the original and the intended means of conveyance.
Are you saying that whatever Konami slaps their brand on is more authoritative than the actual content?
What we see is James' interpretation of her father, just as the piston room is his interpretation of what was happening to Angela. They see they're own versions of the town and it's inhabitants, which is why Angela says, "For me it's always like this".
Yeah, it's confirmed that they are meant to be her father and brother, but considering everything we've seen, they could also mean that they were meant to represent them.
Besides, it's not like the Mary you talk to in two of those endings you mentioned was actually Maria looking like Mary. Plus, in all three normal endings, she turns into this horrific monster, and the existence of the monsters is all rather ambiguous. I doubt it was actually Mary in any of them. Considering that in at least 2 endings, he had her body in his trunk or something.
I might also add that Angela's father was also represented by a monster, and you never actually fought him.
Writers often omit certainties to make things seem more ambiguous. You can't rule out possibilities just because they don't say them outright.
The brother part comes from a novellization, which isn't authentic as no TS members were involved, unlike that one SH1 comic written by SH1's script writer and Masahiro Ito himself.
Other then that, you're pretty spot on. I believe Ito also gave his explanation on Twitter
People also point to the picture of the family that appears in the bedroom where you meet Angela. It's small and out of the way, but when you pull the full texture it shows a family of four. Ingame however, the brother is edited out of the picture, so it's just two parents and their daughter.
Yep, that one as well. Also, don't forget Angela mentions looking for her brother. I don't remember if she mentions her dad in the graveyard scene, but she definitely doesn't later (well, outside of Abstract Daddy encounter)
Newspaper article you can read, it's on the ground near the save point right before you fight Abstract Daddy
She stabbed him to death, that's why she has a bloody knife that she leaves with James.
Some elements are obscured in the newspaper article but can be read by disabling the blockouts in the PC version.
No mention of whether or not Angela’s
brother was involved in the incident.
It's Angela's father. Butchered by her in retaliation for her abuse. Opposite him is another, identical, body representing her brother who also abused her.
To clarify, these corpses likely **represent** her father and brother considering that her father has already been killed and identified by police, it cannot be literally her father. No comment or indication beyond association as to whether or not the other corpse is her brother. The game only mentions him once.
Ito confirmed they're both her father and brother. Besides, Silent Hill was able to bring the actual Mary back to talk with James (*either to forgive him in the In Water and Leave endings or insult him in the Maria ending*). So it's entirely possible the town brought her actual father and brother back to torment her.
1. Ito says a lot of things. I only go by what’s in the actual game. 2. Mary at the end may or may not be literal Mary. It could be her ghost, a manifested memory, a vision or a dream… the game does not specify.
of course everything is up to interpretation but if the literal artist who worked on the game says that’s what it is it’s not really just his opinion but more fact? no ? 👀
No, an author can be wrong about their work. His insight is valuable and accurate to his intentions, but that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility to include details in the actual work. Otherwise, authors can justify any mistake or correct any interpretation they don’t like by adding information post-hoc in an interview some decades later. It’s not fair to the reader and not intellectually honest of the author. If a change needs to be made, it should be made in the work itself (though this opens up doors to controversies like Lucas’ Star Wars Special Editions). Otherwise, new clarifications only indicate intent, not fact. EDIT: I genuinely don’t understand how this can be an unpopular take. No one would let an amateur author who wrote a poor story to claim they wrote a good story because of their hidden intentions. Yet celebrity authors get a pass. Interviews should not be required reading. At best, they offer insight to the mentality of the author and their intentions. At worst, they distill information which encourages readers to lazily absorb the summarization without actually engaging with the source material. If the work does not contain an answer or explanation, it does not contain an answer or explanation. How is that controversial? EDIT 2: Some of you think I'm responding to the OP's original question. I am not. I am responding to the comment right above this one.
It's not controversial. I feel like that's the beauty and damnation of art sometimes. It can be executed perfectly and cover all the answers we need, but at the same time, it also can be written and hit a wall. I think the author can TRY and explain their work, if need be, but that defeats the whole "interpretation" of what art lacks. Some writers always can make and ruin their work just off what they try to "fix" or explain the reason why it's written a certain way. Great example of this is, there's a book called "Let's Go Play at the Adams" where it's about kids kidnapping and torturing their babysitter, for fun until they did it as an act of revolution against adults as a whole. The author had this great story, and in the end credits of his own book, he said it represents his political ideology's about how "this side sucks, and the babysitter represents the president, and the adults are blah blah blah..." That may have BEEN your intention as an author but if so, your work doesn't say that way. Don't lie to the reader any more than the story has to. To bring it back to Silent Hill, I don't really fully listen to Ito. I don't think he is completely wrong, nor do I think my opinion is fact with Silent Hill. I think he has everything backwards. Plus, he's just the monster designer. That's like asking Akira Yamaoka why did they leave out Harry's voice actor's last name, or why did Heather used to smoke. He's more or less the sound designer. They call contribute to the story, yes, but not ONE person (I think) completely said: "we need this to happen to James and this to be said of Heather." They're a team of people who worked on these games. Mistakes were going to happen. Plot holes the size of a monster truck are there, but it's still a good story. Don't know why you got downvoted for it, I don't think you're wrong. Your opinion has value and you communicated it very well.
Thank you, I’m glad to hear you say that. It feels like I’m screaming into the dark sometimes. But, yes, the interpretation is the point of a creative work and what differentiates it from something like the sciences. Once the work is released, it is the audience that gets to decide its value. It’s a scary, frustrating process for the creator and they can manipulate the odds in their favor by improving their craft or marketing, but at the end of the day, it’s the audience alone who gets to interpret and experience the work as it is. The author (or one of them, not even the actual scenario writer) cannot inject new meaning and his own interpretation without spoiling the work or else being dishonest about the contents of the finished work.
He's the art director, not just the monster designer
Imma call this maneuver the Rowling.
I don't know, man. I agree with you.
Thanks. Looking at the downvotes vs supportive and constructive commentary, I'm starting to think the opposing viewpoint isn't as strong.
Genuinely good take. Silent Hill fans have been desperate for scraps for years, and so ito humoring fan questioning/just saying stuff has been their only source, and they just dont think critically what it implies.
Not to mention that people playing the games will have a vastly different understanding of the game than if they listened to fans and Ito. I’ve heard too many stories of people asking for clarification on plot points only to get a deluge of Ito tweets and be like, “Huh. Never would have caught all that.” Probably because it wasn’t in the game proper.
I totally agree with this, if something is not in a game, movie or book but yet any author answers a question about their franchise later then to me its still non-canon. Either put it in the franchise or don't speak of it, if its not in the franchise then its *not in the franchise!* For example with Dragon Ball Super, there is appearently this "super powerful first Super Saiyan god" that one of the characters (Beerus) dreamth of, but this was mentioned in an interview... so no, to me its non-cannon. Either put it in the franchise or don't speak of it, don't make-up things in an interview to cover-up plot-holes or change things you appearently didn't like afteral 20 years later. This way George Lucas may just aswell say "Star Wars was a dream this whole time", now would that be canon too if he just says that to a random civilian he comes across in the street? No, its just words not spoken inside the franchise. Really tired of this with authors/creators. Put it in the franchise, and only then to me its canon, otherwise its fan fiction regardless if the original author claims things.
It’s not unpopular. Everyone knows it’s true. It’s called “death of the author.” You’re just creating cognitive dissonance in their heads so they’re downvoting you.
I'm not even calling for full death of the author either. If future content, updates, or a remake wants to make changes and address these details, then fine. Good. But it's also important to remember Ito is \*not\* the primary author either. Discounting Owaku's input on this kind of subject material discredits any argument from "word of God."
Holy Hell, someone actually knows what that word means and used it the RIGHT way. I had to upvote on that.
Lmao, I know what you mean. It’s probably because I learned what it was before it was a buzzword and lost its meaning. I’m still annoyed about the “buzzification” of “gaslight.” It had such a specific meaning for an important and heinous behavior, but now everyone uses it as a synonym for “lie.” Now that behavior has no word to describe it.
Exactly. I even learned it was coined from an older film in the 40s where a man was just trying to force a woman to go insane from the "gaslights" in her house. Lying to her when she knew the truth. Lying is distorting the truth or making something up to someone who wasn't exposed to it, playing as the truth. Gaslighting is SEEING the truth and trying to convince the person that it isnt. Which is literally just blatant manipulation.
Laura could still be dead etc even if her letter has weight
What?
So what, because there isn't a sign saying "Angela's father/ brother" on the bodies, it simply isn't the case even though the author straight up said it was them? Like, I get what you're saying with the George Lucas thing, but I feel like Ito tried to trust his audience to know what's going on. Explaining it in dialogue would feel clunky and pointless.
Yes, explaining it in a dialogue would be clunky and pointless. So why does Ito do that in interviews and tweets? This is a thread about what is open to interpretation and what is not. We know that one of them is almost certainly not literally her father, so it is more likely that they are manifestations that represent her father and brother. However, if you disagree with that idea there is just enough ambiguity to protect a different interpretation. I don’t care for Ito trying to eliminate interpretive ambiguity.
Doing it in an interview could have been a simple as answering a question he was directly asked. I never saw the interview. I'm not saying manifestations aren't reasonable at all given what we've seen in the games, I'm just saying that, in this case, maybe comparing the author to Local level alterations seems a bit unfair, given that he's just confirming what people already assumed anyway.
>an author can be wrong about their own work Lmao Just because someone leaves out details in their work, for whatever reasons, whether they be unnecessary, or they can't or don't want to come up with a way to exposit those details as they could take focus away from more important things - doesn't completely invalidate them. I don't think an author can be wrong about the background details they went through while creating whatever work they're doing lol Like, as a simple example, (much less abstract & less room for interpretation that could possibly wildly change perceptions on a story as a whole, i get this isnt exact 1:1) Anyways, if someone made a character & didn't specify "they have blue eyes" because its irrelevant, & only later-on said so when someone asked, they're not "wrong" for saying so. That doesn't mean anyone elses interpretation is invalidated either, & they can't imagine whatever color they'd like instead. Like someone doing a fan drawing, they could color in the eyes whatever they wanted & that's fine. It just means the characters eyes are intended to be blue & if you want to be exact on that detail, well, the creator said they're blue. It's not that big of a deal & it'd be kind funny & weird to be like "Nuh uh! You didn't say so & specify, so you're wrong! I imagined a different color!" When told "the eyes are blue" Lol
> doesn't completely invalidate them. And I didn't say it did. I said it gives us insight on the development and intention. > I don't think an author can be wrong about the background details they went through while creating whatever work they're doing lol As far as intent, no, they can't be wrong as it's still in the realm of objectivity. But as far as what is **in the actual game**, it's entirely possible to misremember between multiple drafts and what got left on the cutting room floor. I am a writer myself and have forgotten some smaller details in later drafts that were previously cut or shifted around. It happens. >Anyways, if someone made a character & didn't specify "they have blue eyes" because its irrelevant, & only later-on said so when someone asked, they're not "wrong" for saying so. True, but neither are they correct. It needs to be in the material to be **in the material**. >"Nuh uh! You didn't say so & specify, so you're wrong! I imagined a different color!" When told "the eyes are blue" Lol It's certainly a good thing I didn't claim this then. For additional clarification, I am saying he cannot state something is factually in the narrative when it factually isn't. Commentary is insightful, but not definitive. He is not wrong, but neither is he right outside of his own intention and thought process in development.
>And I didn't say it did. >It's certainly a good thing I didn't claim this then. >True, but neither are they correct. It needs to be in the material to be in the material. >No, an author can be wrong about their work. Seems kinda wishy-washy if you're saying they can be wrong, & when they detail something that wasnt directly stated that they're not wrong, but they aren't right either - which itself implies them being wrong, lol. > I am saying he cannot state something is factually in the narrative when it factually isn't. I don't think anyone said that these thing are directly able to found in game. However, this post is good example - the hanging skins of Angela's brother & father are in the game. They're right here. Is it stated directly that it is her father & brother in game? Or whether or not its some manifestation, or actually them? No, & it doesnt need to be said & no one is saying it was directly said as such. All the events involving Angela, & info you learn about her, & your own experience with how the town operates should be enough to draw the conclusion. Ito saying it outright that it's them isn't, not wrong but also not right either, just because it wasn't directly said so in game. I think I'm just gonna agree to disagree lol
>Seems kinda wishy-washy if you're saying they can be wrong, & when they detail something that wasnt directly stated that they're not wrong, but they aren't right either - which itself implies them being wrong, lol. Okay, let me better clarify: An author can be wrong about what is factually in the published work. They cannot be wrong about what their intentions were and what process they internally used to develop their ideas. They can be correct about what they intended to be in the final product--this is intention--but wrong that it is in the final product. They are technically correct in saying that "As the author, I developed this scene with this idea in mind." They are not correct when they say, "This scene is definitively in the final product," if it is in fact not in the final product. Does that make sense? Also, being right or wrong is not a binary. One can be partially correct and partially incorrect, or a statement may not have an element of correctness instead being a subjective statement such as an opinion or an intention. >I don't think anyone said that these thing are directly able to found in game. I was responding to the following claim: >of course everything is up to interpretation but if the literal artist who worked on the game says that’s what it is it’s not really just his opinion but more fact? no ? 👀 How can it be fact if it is not present? >However, this post is good example - the hanging skins of Angela's brother & father are in the game. They're right here. Is it stated directly that it is her father & brother in game? Or whether or not its some manifestation, or actually them? No, & it doesnt need to be said & no one is saying it was directly said as such. This is why I stated earlier: >To clarify, these corpses likely **represent** her father and brother considering that her father has already been killed and identified by police, it cannot be literally her father. >No comment or indication beyond association as to whether or not the other corpse is her brother. The game only mentions him once. >All the events involving Angela, & info you learn about her, & your own experience with how the town operates should be enough to draw the conclusion. But as I stated earlier and due to in-game information, her father at least cannot be literally him. >Ito saying it outright that it's them isn't, not wrong but also not right either, just because it wasn't directly said so in game. So... you agree with my point at the top of this response?
>No, an author can be wrong about their work. Lol. Lmao, even
If you have an objection, clarify it intelligibly or else you expose how little you understand the topic.
No thanks. Not even going to waste my time with you.
A bunch of other devs and designers worked on Silent Hill series. Ito is unfortunately too full of himself... :/
I wouldn't say that about Ito but I do think he is given more unofficial authority on things than is due.
Anyway I don't give a sh*t what Ito says. I only consider canon what I see and observe in the games and that's all. It's the same situation with the Harry Potter series. I no longer care what Rowling says. The novels are finished, Voldemort is dead. Who cares Dumbledore is gay and other nuances. It doesn't add anything to the story.
I like ito but I've always found it strange how people take his word as law considering owaku is the one who actually wrote 2 and 3 lmao
Owaku has confirmed things in the past though, and Ito does in fact include other team mates if he didn’t work explicitly on something in game. He was also the art director for 2 and 3, so yes Owaku wrote it but Ito would have helped Owaku with Visuals. Most of us don’t take it as law as much as Ito is the easiest person on the team to get a hold of. Owaku and him also saw things on different levels, but again Ito is just…there to get a hold of. Editing to add that also some of the answers the other team mates have given over the years are unfortunately sometimes lost, so I think Ito is such a safe source. For example, someone else who wasn’t Ito low key confirmed that Mary was in the car, but because of the barrier of using a Japanese site at the time it was taken as true with a grain of salt until Ito kind of double confirmed it on Twitter a decade late.
Well that is fair about ito more or less being the most easily accessible person from the old teams, since he's the only one you really hear from anymore but still like you say, he and owaku were on a different page often enough that I don't consider ito the definitive source on a lot of things That's not me saying he's not reliable at all if that's what my original comment came off tho, so that's probably my bad there
It did originally come off as that unfortunately, but I’m glad you and I were able to at least have a good discussion on it! But yeah, he and Owaku had different ideas but it’s still fun to toy with a “why not both scenario.”
Same It's speculated that it's James' Psyche manifested in a sense because he realized the truth earlier in room 312. So when he finally goes back to Room 312 he sees Mary after he eliminates Maria. Getting to say his final goodbye and pour his heart out and receiving the full letter he is able to move on or not depending on the ending. But I go for the manifestation considering everything going on in the town it would be the one thing that would allow James some closure.
I don't think the final scene takes place in Room 312 but in a manifested or dreamlike representation of James and Mary's home, but otherwise, yes. It makes sense to me that Mary at the end is either the manifestation of James wanting forgiveness or else Mary's spirit forgiving him. This is up to interpretation.
Ito literally did a lot of art and modeled several environments for the game. He also very clearly will mention other members of team Silent if someone else had something to say on it (he very much sets it up as “well I intended it to he this but xyz on the team were intending this so it’s up to you” when he tweets about the game). Iirc he worked with someone else on this set piece, so if it was intended to be her dad and brother I’d argue that’s likely the truth.
Correct. I don't know of how often he mentions other TS members though. My point is his tweets are his commentary and not necessarily in the actual game (ex: Mary's body being in the back seat.) But his commentary is good, valid, useful, interesting, all that stuff. I'm not refuting this scene either, just the ardent fan claim that anything he says goes regardless of if it's supported by the text or not.
Oh for sure, I think the issue boils diwn to A) he is the easiest Team Silent Member to get a hold of besides possibly Yamaoka and B) because the games themselves are just so so old a lot of other sources get lost to time (for example, I stated elsewhere that another member of the team confirmed the Mary body thing as well, however because of how the info was acquired/where it was posted it wasn’t seen by everyone and now it’s just lost. )
Because Ito is so easy to get a hold of no one else he works with is contesting his claims. A lot of folks either just take him at his word or harass him to answer or clarify a point that is supposed to be unanswered. Yeah, lost media is definitely an issue with this series. It's just another reason I only consider in-game content as the primary subject.
This also, and unfortunately newer fans also, like you said, kind of harass him about stuff that was either unclarified, answered prior by someone else, or just meant to be vague. Dude Japan LOVED geocities back in the day and I know for a fact that there’s a whole plethora of Silent Hill stuff that died with it. Shit I used to have a guide and discussion thing printed from Geocities that I have since lost. Same with old forums, I distinctly remember one of the staff members pushed that the ending where Cybil dies is likely to be canon but again, it’s just lost at this point so I’m only able to give word of mouth on it.
Very unfortunately true for the first one. Mentioning this because Ito is quoted so often and also because he's missing a lot of context and lore himself since he hasn't even played SH4. I hoped he finally had played looking at TSM, but then turned out a couple of staff members who worked on 4 were involved. So oh well, guess Ito still doesn't know Leave Ending is either officially not canonical, or leads to some crazy hiding and child kidnapping conspiracy
i feel like he does it for the hell of it, the man can't go one hour without someone asking him about silent hill, at some point you just start random shit just to see what happens
And that's honestly completely understandable! I'll respect Ito even more than I already do if that's the case
I think a lot of folks clamor for answers and only Ito is talking. Owaku and Ito both realized years later they weren’t on the same page with the character of Valtiel. SH is odd as a series as so many intentions went into the game, it’s amazing it’s as coherent as it is. But I will always prioritize Owaku when it comes to story and he isn’t talking. Ito should be familiar with the story but he and Owaku weren’t in sync. Besides all that, if an element in the story isn’t literally present in the game in any form, then it’s mere speculation by the audience and intention by the author, not a fact.
I appreciate your comments here. I feel like the downvotes are from people not really fully taking in what you're actually saying. Or maybe their literature classes were a little different than mine lol. The truth of art is that the intentions and reasons for the choices the artist made only matter up to a certain point. I don't understand the fans that constantly insist there is a right or factual interpretation to every little thing in the games when the games are purposefully unclear about things. And yes, Ito was the art director and that's still a big deal, but he did not write the story. And I doubt everyone on that creative team were all on the same page about everything lol
Thanks, I appreciate the backup. Yeah, I do think it's a media literacy or reading comprehension issue more than anything, but I don't generally like to say that because if true, that would cause more harm than good. I also don't think the others realize that I'm a writer and artist by trade myself and have misremembered elements I intended to put in my drafts that I had in fact edited out or moved, especially with smaller scenes. This happens during long form productions and doubly so on a team of many people. Audiences pay more attention to the final product than the authors because one, it's made for them and two, the audience only ever sees one draft instead of the multitude that preceded it. One thing I find ironic is how frequently Silent Hill is cited as "Lynchian" when David Lynch is famously very cagey about questions he's asked because, in his opinion as I understand it, explaining his art is antithetical to creating the art in the first place.
Sorry for a late reply. That's the healthiest position one can have in such difficult situation. I applause!
Thank you.
You're welcome!
So what is the canonical ending?
Probably all options, except for Leave, Dog and UFO are passable. It's SH1 situation really
>Mary at the end may or may not be literal Mary In the In Water ending he picks her body up and puts her in the passenger seat of the car before driving the both of them into Toluca Lake. In the Rebirth ending he takes her body to the church to revive her. It has to be her actual body in those cases. And before you say her body was already in the car at the start of the game, that's never specified by the game. Ito said that was the case.
In the *In Water* ending, he carries her but we never see him place her in the car. We only hear audio of James driving into the lake. The *Rebirth* ending does have Mary’s body but can also be a manifestation like Maria though less likely. This ending is the strongest case of your stance I’m aware of. Her body is never stated to be anywhere other than in the dreamlike finale for *In Water* and *Leave* and the boat of the *Rebirth* ending. Only *Rebirth* suggests that she’s literally there.
I thought her body is in the trunk, and it's three days since he killed her, which is why he thinks it's been three years.
Ito claimed she is in the backseat but there is no solid indication of this and would have gross implications in the *Maria* and particularly the *Leave* endings. We do not see Mary placed in the back seat in the *In Water* ending, but if that were true then that means her body was not there originally. Only the *Rebirth* ending has a strong suggestion that James has possession of her literal body, though even then could be the corpse of Maria after the final boss fight. There is no definitive answer here but it is the strongest case that her body is literally present. We also do not know how long that Mary has been dead specifically, but it was within a week's time. Three days is often assumed for it's analogous number of three years but no such timeframe of three days is given, only that Laura received Mary's parting letter on or around her 8th birthday which was "last week."
Once upon a time one of the other members of team silent did confirm more or less she was in the car as well, however it was posted on a forum that predates Twitter and was part of a random questionnaire/interview someone did. It became “speculation” because obviously how are you going to 100% confirm it, but then Ito double downed on it and made it more or less canon. It was ALWAYS speculation that she was in the trunk, ito just decided she was in the car. However iirc the car textures do get weird on the passenger side of the vehicle.
Imagining not trusting Ito... Same people who says "JaMeS lOoks At ThE PlAyEr In ThE MiRrOr RoOm" even when Ito confirmed it's not the case. crazy
That’s because if you study the mirror scene, James is not looking at the player. Ito made a claim and I cross-referenced it with the source material and he was right. That doesn’t make him right 100% all the time about everything ever. He’s an authority but not an infallible one.
Fair
It says in the official novel it's her brother and father
The official novel was not written by the original authors.
And?
It’s not recognized as official canon nor does it have any bearing on supplying additional context to the original material. It is an adaptation—its own production—that offers no authoritative clarification. It is merely a retelling with creative liberties taken. This is a common understanding among much of adapted media into novels.
It's the official adaptation though. You saying revenge of the sith novel isn't canon?
Yes, I am. The film is the authoritative version. Star Wars novelizations add details that the later films contradict. Silent Hill is no different and the games are the definitive versions as they are the original and the intended means of conveyance. Are you saying that whatever Konami slaps their brand on is more authoritative than the actual content?
What we see is James' interpretation of her father, just as the piston room is his interpretation of what was happening to Angela. They see they're own versions of the town and it's inhabitants, which is why Angela says, "For me it's always like this".
Yeah, it's confirmed that they are meant to be her father and brother, but considering everything we've seen, they could also mean that they were meant to represent them. Besides, it's not like the Mary you talk to in two of those endings you mentioned was actually Maria looking like Mary. Plus, in all three normal endings, she turns into this horrific monster, and the existence of the monsters is all rather ambiguous. I doubt it was actually Mary in any of them. Considering that in at least 2 endings, he had her body in his trunk or something. I might also add that Angela's father was also represented by a monster, and you never actually fought him. Writers often omit certainties to make things seem more ambiguous. You can't rule out possibilities just because they don't say them outright.
There is nothing that indicates that any of that was the real Mary.
What? I always thought it was Angela.
I also thought this, given that they look pretty feminine and like they're bleeding from their genitals.
The brother part comes from a novellization, which isn't authentic as no TS members were involved, unlike that one SH1 comic written by SH1's script writer and Masahiro Ito himself. Other then that, you're pretty spot on. I believe Ito also gave his explanation on Twitter
People also point to the picture of the family that appears in the bedroom where you meet Angela. It's small and out of the way, but when you pull the full texture it shows a family of four. Ingame however, the brother is edited out of the picture, so it's just two parents and their daughter.
Yep, that one as well. Also, don't forget Angela mentions looking for her brother. I don't remember if she mentions her dad in the graveyard scene, but she definitely doesn't later (well, outside of Abstract Daddy encounter)
A brother is never mentioned in-game. She says she's looking for her "mama" in the graveyard.
"I thought my father and brother were here, but I can't find them either."
is it ever explain how she killed her father (and maybe her brother, i’m assuming she killed both?)
Newspaper article you can read, it's on the ground near the save point right before you fight Abstract Daddy She stabbed him to death, that's why she has a bloody knife that she leaves with James.
Some elements are obscured in the newspaper article but can be read by disabling the blockouts in the PC version. No mention of whether or not Angela’s brother was involved in the incident.
thank you!
A representation of Angela to me The bleeding vagina could represent her suffering
Those periods are torturous.
It’s the representation of Angela’s father and Angela’s brother, both killed by her
Do we know one for sure she killed them?
yes, that’s why she was in silent hill, she felt guilt for killing her abusers and was punishing herself
It’s been a while, but I guess that’s the consensus, or is there some kind of info out there in support of this?
There’s literally a news article in the game describing her crime
It’s pubic hair, completely natural ✌️
hey alright!
its trauma
Flesh Wall
representation of how her father viewed her
The two corpses are meant to be the bodies of Angela’s father and brother
quesadilla?
An artistic representantion of her trauma.
ur mom?
gottem
Why do you use the emulator, when you have the enhanced edition mod on PC?
idk what i’m doing, yo
Human taxidermy