An Analysis And Findings

[poorjack]

I think it is better left to ambiguity, however, I think that in the execution ending, he DID kill Charlie, but the ending is not cannon.

[Shadedarkan]

I believe it was better left that way also. Besides, there is more than enough information in the game to fill in all the gaps if you pay close attention.

[devil hunter]

I'm sorry Shadedarkan but a lot of people agree that he represents a monster, a cycle or revenge. That theory makes the most sense.

Blame and guilt may be the two most powerful ideas in the world of silent hill. Take James for example, he refused to take the blame for Mary's death, and his overwhelming guilt and denial manifest as PH. Travis had it the other way around, and felt like a butcher, placing to much blame on himself for the deaths of his parents, thus manifesting the Butcher. Murphey put so much blame and hatred on Patrick, that he could not possibly move on with his life, not to mention, it may not have been Patrick who killed Charlie at all. We just know that Patrick is a pedophile who hid bodies in the lake behind his and Murphey's houses, and that Charlie was found in that lake. One could see this as Charlie being a victim, or one could see this as Murphy not watching charlie close enough, and Charlie drowning in the lake. This theory is further supported by the attitude Patrick has towards Murphey in the shower. He isn't scared at first, he is just surprised to see Murphey there, and he shows no guilt towards killing Charlie, just a fear that Murphey is accusing him of it. So if that is indeed true, one could see Patrick as Murphey's personal "bogeyman" and the object of his blame for Charlie's death.

Bogeyman represents hatred, cycle of revenge, he's someone's idea of evil. Person sees another person as generic monster, possibly to justify his own actions. He wants to destroy a soulless monster that took something from him.
That's exactly what Murphy thought of Napier and what Anne thought of Anne, they thought they were monsters.

He has every right to blame Napier, because he DID kill his son. I don't see guilt playing any part in symbolism for Murphy though.

Patrick did kill him. They found his body wrapped in plastic or something. The police was even there. He had to be sure, he won't kill someone unless he's completely sure he's the murderer.

He is blaming him for Charlie's death, because he did kill him. The whole point is all the things Murphy has done to get himself in jail, to get revenge of the monster.

It seems that you two completely disregard the stuff Orphanage boy says about monster, what nun says about revenge etc. and what Murphy says before and after the fight with the Bogeyman and what Anne says before we see Murphy as the Bogeyman.

It doesn't explain why he is always seen one step ahead of Murphy, why he doesn't acknowledge Murphy behind him in the Centennial Building Otherworld, why it appears behind him in the bathroom of St. Maria's rearing back to strike, why he starts making the effort to hinder Murphy's progress in getting to the Orphanage Girl during the St. Maria Otherworld, it doesn't explain why he picks a fight with Murphy after Murphy picks up the key or why it manifests out of the body of the Orphanage Boy for the actual showdown. It certainly doesn't explain why Murphy can only kill it with its own weapon while it waits, as if it wants to be killed. There has to be something more to it.

You can look at it the same way how Murphy tried to get to Napier. That monster represents an obstacle, he felt the need to destroy that monster for the things he's done. The path towards him was not easy.
Murphy realized the things he did didn't solve anything, so now Bogeyman was finally defeated, that's why he disappeared and Murphy could get the "freedom" key, which also holds symbolism.

You won't believe it because you find it too simple, well there's not really any evidence for your theory.

[Shadedarkan]

Show me the PROOF that Patrick killed Charlie. You won't, because you CAN'T! There is NOTHING in the game that says Patrick killed Charlie other than the word of George, who has no way of knowing definitively, and Murphy's. Poorjack and I are using only FACTUAL information to form theories from. Where we make assumptions about the story we point it out.
Just because an ending isn't considered canon doesn't mean the information used in it is false. So, Murphy didn't get executed. That does NOT mean that his divorce was false because they mentioned it, or the time at which it occurred. The divorce happened REGARDLESS of the ending you get and that does NOT change. If you want to believe that in Execution, Murphy indeed killed Charlie, that is your choice, but don't use your choice as fact. Murphy being convicted of Charlie's death does NOT prove that he did it. You act like no one has ever been wrongly convicted. We cannot PROVE that Murphy killed Charlie anymore than we can prove he didn't.
I said I don't believe the general verdict on Bogeyman, because, given the evidence presented in the game, he can not be so easily summed up. His concept is not as simple as just revenge, his actions aren't consistent with that persona. That is also my interpretation, as I can't prove it, which I have stated and supported exceedingly well. Just as poorjack stated and supported his exceedingly well.
If you want to so vehemently say that these theories are wrong, PROVE them to be or PROVE there to be enough evidence to cause that level of doubt. Don't come here with, "I think"s or "or something"s. Most DEFINITELY don't come here with "other people don't agree with you either." If you want to follow the crowd then do so as the lamb, if you want to challenge my theory then I ask you to do so with the scientific method and solid supporting evidence for your argument.

[Yuki]

Er... the entirety of the Charlie plot revolved around Murphy's guilt for not being able to save him from Napier, and Murphy's anger at that Napier wasn't convicted for Charlie's death.

[devil hunter]

I said I don't believe the general verdict on Bogeyman, because, given the evidence presented in the game, he can not be so easily summed up. His concept is not as simple as just revenge, his actions aren't consistent with that persona. That is also my interpretation, as I can't prove it, which I have stated and supported exceedingly well. Just as poorjack stated and supported his exceedingly well.
If you want to so vehemently say that these theories are wrong, PROVE them to be or PROVE there to be enough evidence to cause that level of doubt. Don't come here with, "I think"s or "or something"s. Most DEFINITELY don't come here with "other people don't agree with you either." If you want to follow the crowd then do so as the lamb, if you want to challenge my theory then I ask you to do so with the scientific method and solid supporting evidence for your argument.

There's no need to put words in capitals.

Bogeyman doesn't symbolize just revenge, that's just a part of his symbolism. He also symbolizes a monster people see in others.
As you noticed Murphy doesn't want to talk about his past he only wants to get out of town. When he gets the letter to the Monastery, that all changes. That part of the game is the part where he finally faces his demons.
His design looks generic, but I think it suits him because of his symbolism. He represents a monster, a souless, generic, monster. Both Murphy and Anne see the Bogeyman as the monster they have to destroy, they think that's a right thing to do. The revenge drives both of them.
The part where Bogeyman strangles the boy is reminding him of Charlie's murder. It can also represent the attack on Frank, because I think that the girl represents young Anne, so she sees a dead boy and thinks that Murphy killed him, she thinks he's the Bogeyman. The same thing happened to Murphy when Frank was killed by Sewell. Anne, like everyone else, thinks that Murphy brutally injured Frank (I didn't wrote die because he didn't die right away, but he did die because of those injuries after some years) because of Sewell.

When he gets to the mortuary thats where Murphy finally says that killing Napier didn't solve anything. Murphy's life was destroyed, Charlie was still dead, nothing could bring him back. That's where Bogeyman finally vanished. Revenge just made his life worse.
We see it after the battle that Napier's face and Murphy's face appear. Napier's face appears because Murphy saw him as the monster. Murphy's face appears because Anne saw him as the monster, we see that at the end of the game, in the last boss battle (I consider that part where we fight Anne a boss fight). She says that every time she looked at her father she saw a monster, she saw Murphy and Murphy looks like a Bogeyman to her.
There can also be another reason why Murphy's face appeared, by „killing monsters“ he is becoming a monster himself. If you examine a hole in the first floor of the Centennial Building you can see shadows of the Bogeyman and a guy who's wearing a towel (I think that's Napier). Bogeyman kills him.

When Murphy goes to grab the freedom key he gets thrown away by the Boogeyman and he appears near the place where Charlie was drowned. He hears Charlie's voice and tries to save him. This time he manages to kill the monster.
When Bogeyman is defeated, Charlie appears and says that he killed the Bogeyman. Murphy says that didn't bring him back. Then Charlie says that it's not his fault. Then he's finally able to get the "freedom" key. he admitted his mistakes etc. he was finally free. Bogeyman disappeared.

If Napier really didn't kill Charlie then Murphy didn't learn anything, because he still thinks that Napier killed Charlie. Silent Hill wouldn't let him go if he hasn't learned anything.

It's you who needs better proof for your theory. There's nothing in the game suggesting that Bogeyman symbolizes fear. Characters or anything in the game don't show that.
Murphy was so full of hatred and wanted revenge that he stole a police patrol car and police chased him for some time. In jail he made a deal with Sewell so he can get closer to Napier. He then attacked him in the showers.
Anne was also full of hatred and wanted revenge. She done a lot of stuff, even "sick things" so Murphy could end under her watch, then she would kill him.
The nun even says stuff like "dealing with grief on our own ways" and "revenge is a long and treacherous road...where do you suppose it ends?".

Murphy says that he was angry that his son was dead and the "monster" was still alive. He wanted to get revenge. He then admits that killing Napier didn't solve anything.

EDIT: If Napier really didn't kill Charlie, don't you think that would be at least mentioned by someone.? Would Murphy think if Napier didn't kill him, would the nun mention that?

That possibility is not mentioned.

You don't need to get rude, I'm just trying to tell you that you're wrong and that the major theme in the game, revenge.

[Tomm]

listen to Devil Hunter everyone.

Napier most certainly killed Charlie.

Also, Murphy kills Napier in every ending except A.

You can't take the facts of every ending and make them all work together. I'm really confused why this started happening from Shattered Memories onward. Each ending is an ending to the story of that playthrough. EVERY ending cannot be true at the same time.

[Yuki]

listen to Devil Hunter everyone.

Napier most certainly killed Charlie.

Also, Murphy kills Napier in every ending except A.

You can't take the facts of every ending and make them all work together. I'm really confused why this started happening from Shattered Memories onward. Each ending is an ending to the story of that playthrough. EVERY ending cannot be true at the same time.

I think people are doing that to try to make a bigger meaning, to get a better picture of what happened (since in some of these endings the facts could potentially mesh well together).

That being said, I'd really like to see a Silent Hill game in which the ending doesn't determine anything more than the ending itself, versus the plot of the rest of the game. For instance, SH2/3/4 all have the same plot until the ending itself.

[Shadedarkan]

It deeply saddens me that you all focused so hard on one thing that you continually missed the entire point of my posts during the latter half of this thread. But thanks for telling me what my point of view was, I wasn't aware I wasn't supposed to have an opinion.
I wash my hands of it.

[Yuki]

It deeply saddens me that you all focused so hard on one thing that you continually missed the entire point of my posts during the latter half of this thread. But thanks for telling me what my point of view was, I wasn't aware I wasn't supposed to have an opinion.
I wash my hands of it.

So... your points about Charlie "not being killed" by Napier and about the Bogeyman's symbolism were rebutted and all you can do is insult people as a result?

[Augophthalmoses]

It deeply saddens me that you all focused so hard on one thing that you continually missed the entire point of my posts during the latter half of this thread. But thanks for telling me what my point of view was, I wasn't aware I wasn't supposed to have an opinion.
I wash my hands of it.

No, seems more like you were upset over being corrected.