Jump to content

Talk:The Mist (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some Interesting Trivia to Note

[edit]

1. In the opening scene, the main character is painting. The painting is clearly Roland Deschain from the Dark Tower. Behind him is the Tower and to his right is a rose.

2. Another painting (to the left) is the figure of a man with rays of white light coming from his face. This is directly from John Carpenter's The Thing.

3. When the Stinger-Fly lands on religious nut-lady, she says "My life for you." This is an echo of a similar line from The Stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.249.138 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if this made it to the final film but in an article published several months ago on Aintitcoolnews.com about an early set visit, the Castle Rock Times' front page had an article about both Cujo and Johnny Smith

Levid37 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)levid37[reply]

Headlines

[edit]

1

[edit]

2

[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Tower

[edit]

I'll just say..Since the main character painted "movie posters", one of which happened to be the Dark Tower...Perhaps an allusion to a Dark Tower movie? Just throwing it out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.186.210 (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, nothing more than a harmless plug or throw to the authors other works. I wouldn't read into as a teaser for a Dark Tower film(s)).

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. The rose and the tower present in the picture would certainly suggest the dark tower, but there is no way they could make that whole thing into a movie. No way they could compress 7 novels into a movie less than 12 hours. The last book by itself is just plain huge. Even if they broke it up into several movies, I'm sure they would all be horrible. The guy in the picture looks too stylized to be Roland anyway. The picture itself kicks a serious amount of ass, however. I would absolutely love a poster of that on my wall! Avatarian86 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I think the whole "Possible hint at the next Stephen King movie?" part should be removed from the actual article. I don't want to start a revert war, however.Avatarian86 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think a Dark Tower movie series would be bad at all, i think it would kick ass! I'm also wondering if The Mist is connected to The Dark Tower through the concept of other dimensions? Anyone agree?--Vagrantdead (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

[edit]

Anyway we can get a more detailed synopsis? What we have now is a basic, pre-release info, but now that the film's out, can anyone add anything to this? 24.210.137.157 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; now that the movie is public a more detailed plot summary would be in order. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd write it, but I haven't seen the film myself yet. If anyone wants to write it, take a look at WP:MOSFILM#Plot for a guideline about writing the plot summary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it two days after it came out. I've added a plot summary, but it may need a bit of trimming to meet length restrictions. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also added an entry on Wikiquote; please feel free to expand it. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan's Poster

[edit]

At the start of the movie, when he's painting the Dark Tower poster, does anyone else think the completed picture to the left is a poster for Pan's Labyrinth? I ask because it looks to me like The Faun with Ofelia in labyrinth. Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.248.127 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER ALERT - PLEASE ADD

[edit]

This article need a spoiler alert warning added. The plot section gives away a major twist in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:33, November 27, 2007 (talk • contribs) 72.198.98.67

The consensus has been to exclude spoiler alerts from articles about fictional topics since "Plot" in the section heading is seen to cover the film in a comprehensive manner. The summary's not to entice the readership into seeing the film, but rather to complement the real-world context in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I read the entry precisely for that reason--I couldn't remember if that ending was in the Novella. I wouldn't have looked it up here if I hadn't seen the movie yet. (in my mind that was the only really interesting part of the film. The novella had the characters SOO much better...)24.199.114.226 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Who else laughed their pants off when the elderly lady threw a can of peas at the religious zealot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.171.208 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I DID I DID!!! That was awesome i was in a quiet room watching it with headphones on and i couldnt help but yell out "F**K YEAH TAKE THAT!!!. I was also very releived when he shot her in the head too, well deserved.--Vagrantdead (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spolier alerts are for STUPID PEOPLE: Are those people watching "Titanic" and hope it would NOT sink? Or do they share the thrill about a WW3 movie about the fact WHO FINALLY WINS THE WAR? And everybody knows the plot of King Kong and how it ends, nevertheless the remake from 2005 was a whole new movie and worth to watch despite the wellknown plot and the ending. So face it: The journey is the destination, not the fact how it ends! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.213.123 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reading a plot summary in the first place if you want to avoid "spoilers"? 129.110.242.30 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the novelization

[edit]

There needs to be an entry for this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.104.62 (talk • contribs) 02:17, December 10, 2007

If there are external sources which document these changes, then they can be added. Otherwise, this would constitute original research. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it really, though? I'm about the give away the ending to both in the following paragraph, in case you don't want to be spoiled...

The article on the novella says the story ends with the survivors driving away into the mist into an unknown fate. The movie article says the hero shoots four people, including his son, and then help arrives moments later. How come we can explain the details in the separate articles, but not compare them here?

--YellowTapedR (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before its release I wrote such a section myself. I didn't make the policy, and it may not seem so important on a film such as this -- that change in particular is rather blatant -- but just think about what articles on, say, the 9/11 terrorist attacks would look like if anyone could post anything without providing a source to back them up. Let's just keep things painless around here, and stick to code. I'm sure by now that some third party reviewer has noted these changes, it just might take a little legwork to dig it up. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a "Differences" section that was added today. After the primary contribution of a large section, details like these were latter added, substantiating that such comparative details can become indiscriminate with no way to judge their importance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects

[edit]

Reviews

[edit]

The film has received generally positive reviews with a 69% rating on RT, so I'd say it's received better than mixed reviews. RT's system of separating "cream of the crop" is misleading and somewhat of an appeal to authority. I think it's better to just look at total reviews rather than any personal opinions of the reviewers. Aaron Bowen (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's highly encouraged to cite critics' personal opinions. With just the percentages, there's no way to determine why a film has been received the way it did. The best reviews to cite are those from mainstream media outlets -- these can be considered more reliable sources due to their reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight than Joe's Movie Review Blog. In addition, these mainstream film critics' opinions have more weight, having wider circulation than the aforementioned hypothetical blogger. If there are multiple editors involved, discussion should be held to shape consensus over items such as international reviews (more so for non-American films to avoid systemic bias), specific likes and dislikes (downplaying clever wording that critics may have, especially when enjoyably ripping a much hated film), the amount of content, etc. You can review the Featured Articles of WikiProject Film to see how they've been formatted in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the aggregate rating given by RT is only professional movie reviewers. Metacritic and RT's Cream of the Crop both rate it below 60. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the reviews section doesn't relay very well is how divisive the movie has been or critics. Some consider it one of the worst movies of the year, while other prominent critics have given it near-perfect ratings. --YellowTapedR (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or did ignore my reference to appeal to authority? Aaron Bowen (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Endings?

[edit]

This isn't a discussion, I'm simply checking because it seems evident that the version I watched at the cinema just recently had an ending that I doubt westerners could stomach, meaning there was probably a different ending in the Western version, then this can be used as evidence for the existence of alto endings pre-emptiveley. What happened in the end in what I saw is: David kills the two old people, the woman, and his son, then 5 seconds later the army come, thus inventing an extremely poor attempt at making a sadistic slapstick ending that seemed so embarassingly thrown-in that it completely draws away from the other dramatic events of the movie. The country I live in loves to laugh at other people s misfortune and death, which is probably why they had this version (IF there are alto endings. And yes, the audience I sat with laughed as the man cried because he had to kill his son... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the ending that appeared everywhere. There are no alternative versions. It actually contributed towards most of the negative reviews that the film got in the US. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 16:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thankyou. Once again: I wasn't trying to turn this into a forum, I was merely checking. Perpahs they made it in a way so one region would find it catastrophic and another find it funny, I'm always appauled by the behaviour I have to deal with when trying to watch these dramas, and I'll never get used to it. Is the link of the page? I'm not sure theres a reception title yet, but in my personal opinion: the ending did ruin the depressing atmosphere by turning it into something bizzare. If they wanted to make it worse, they could have made the survivors who were on the truck the people who stayed back in the store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTheKay (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I was waiting for the store survivors too. I really want someone to analyse the ending. It seems VERY deep.

-G

They *are* the store survivors, sort of. Actually, it's the lady who walks out earlier in the movie saying she has to go get her two kids. -Azathoth117 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there IS an 'aternate' version of 'The Mist', a fan edit that reworks the ending to reflect the original book finale...http://www.karcreat.com/MistNovellaCut.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.131.157 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should be a tad less ignorant. Westerners handled that and many other endings just fine and it wasn't made to be a joke but a dramatic peice. Maybe you like to laugh at fictinal charecters misfortunes but if you think that was the point of the ending than you are not paying much attention. Just so you know not all americans are gun toting morons who cannot handle disapointment in a movie and we understood and were able to stomache the ending just fine. 174.42.210.161 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made my post, before I saw this one. The article claims that the son was too young to be shot, so he was spared, et al. But the "AMC" version that I just finished, had him shoot the two elders, the blonde, and his son, and then he tried to shoot himself, though he knew that he had only the four shots. Now yes, it was ironic. But that made his personal tragedy that much worse. I think that any dark humor was coincidental there. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bigger than a blue whale

[edit]

It states in the summary that they encounter a six legged beast that is many times the size of a blue whale. I understand that this is the description in the original story, but where is it stated in the film that it's that big? The commentary? Curious. MwNNrules (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do get a fairly good size comparison between the Hexopod and David's jeep. I wouldn't say it's many times the size of a blue whale - it doesn't look nearly as large as described in the novel. But I would say it's at least a hundred and fifty feet long, maybe half again as tall at the shoulder. Inasmuch as it has shoulders. -Azathoth117 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was just curious because the description seemed to be straight out of the story. MwNNrules (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Plot section

[edit]

"Several trucks filled with survivors are part of the convoy, among them the mother whom nobody from the store would escort, along with her two children. David falls to his knees screaming as a pair of soldiers look on in confusion. David had been driving away from help the entire time."

Yes, this is all true...but I'm not sure about the last sentence. I got the impression that the soldiers were coming *towards* David, that they'd been slowly fighting their way through the Mist in an attempt to get to the Arrowhead Base. I don't have the movie to check, but I'm pretty sure that they wind up meeting David head-on, not overtaking him.

Also, am I the only one who foresees an ill-fated sequel a la Hills Have Eyes 2? The "Movie 1: Monsters Terrorize People; Movie 2: Army Shoots Monsters" strategy all over again?

-Azathoth117 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==They would have to be coming from behind him, in order to have picked up the woman who left from the store to check on her two kids immediately after the mist appears. David would be driving away from the Arrowhead project, and presumably, she lived much closer than the distance he drove on a tank of gas. It seemed to me that the soldiers were fanning out from the source to clean things out. Leafschik1967 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do overtake him from the rear. However, I agree that the plot summary should end about one sentence earlier, as it is sufficient to get the point across. Over-explanation ruins the prose and makes it read like an essay. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the book and the film

[edit]

Should the changes between the book and the film be included in this?

For example, at the end of the book, the 5 escapees from the grocery store only end up leaving a diary for other people to hopefully find in the future.

Also at the end of the book, the mist shows no signs of disappearing.

Other changes: The line tied to one of the people from the Brett Norton "expedition" doesn't reveal a severed half to a body, and it is also assumed they all died.

The main character, David, does not find his wife dead in the book and is in fact unable to even get to the house. Also in the book, he has a significant relationship with Amanda Dumfries, at one point even having sex with her.

Again in the book, Irene does not survive. She is set upon by the creatures shortly before they get to the car.

(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's Hattie Turman who gets killed by the spiders, not Irene.

Also, Ollie shot Mrs. Carmody only once in the novel, while he shot her twice in the movie. The script says that Mrs. Carmody, in her wounded state, still demanded Jim and Mr. Mackey to kill David's group. That's why Ollie shot her again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobr1020 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy's death

[edit]

It doesn't show him killing billy and it doesn't sho billy dead. Maybe he shot billy somewhere where he might survive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why would he want to do that? Your suggesting that he shot Billy in his leg with the intention of letting him bleed to death? EchetusXe (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sjpw him killing any of the four-it just pans back from the jeep, we see a flash and hear a gun shot 4 times. It then cuts to the interior of the jeep to reveal David trying to kill himself with the empty gun and punching the interior, and showing the 4 others clearly dead. TheTrojanHought (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly think that the MPAA would allow them to show a man blowing out a 5-year-old boy's brains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobr1020 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ending tank

[edit]

Since I'm the only person geek enough to say this I'll say it: the armoured vehicle at the ending is described as such, "He hears what sounds like a creature moving toward him, but instead turns out to be a tank," yeah see here's the thing it was a self propelled gun so I'm changing it...someone please correct me if I'm wrong.--217.42.234.252 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its called the Paladin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.110.170 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


But doesn't care. The narrator think that is a Tank, and that is the important. And is a very pausible confusion, because looks very similar to a person that isn't a soldier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.182.81 (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment above and am changing this to "mobile artillery tank". While technically not a tank, the vastest majority of people reading this summary wouldn't know what "self propelled gun" is. Neither is it relevant enough to stop the reader from reading further and opening a separate Wikipedia page just to find out that it was basically a just a tank. This isn't the Internet Movie Firearms Database.~~ Nicholas A. Chambers (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy's age

[edit]

The text refers to Billy as David's "five-year-old son", but I don't recall his age being mentioned in the movie. And he looks much older than that, of course, since he was being portrayed by a nine-year-old actor. Joule36e5 (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 26

[edit]

This quote appears to be unnecessarily inflammatory. The article is about a horror movie with zero political undertones. In fact, the quote specifically says "The scary stuff works extremely well, but..." The quoted portion of the article bears no relevance to the critical reception of a horror movie. Recommend deleting the reference entirely. Bloody Disgusting is an important horror site, but the quotations from it should be limited to substantive criticism of the movie as opposed to stereotypes. Cjtx87 (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected false info

[edit]

I corrected the part of the plot that says the man who is cocooned in the pharmacy was Brent Norton. That man was actually the MP who came to the supermarket early on in the film to inform the officers that their leave was terminated. Norton and his group headed towards the town square and was never seen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.81.4 (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monster were afraid of glass?

[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but the monsters appeared to be afraid of glass. All of them, except the big dumb bugs, stayed well away from all types of glass. Even the big creatures were only willing to quickly grab people near the glass, and go nowhere near it. The bird-like creatures seemed to try to get well away from the glass when they caught thier bugs. Also, none of the creatures really tried to get through any of the glass. So either all of those creatures were afraid of glass, or someone was a poor writer, I'm preferring the former. 77.103.119.51 (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't seem that way to me I think the bugs were trying to break into the store, didn't care about glass, and other bigger beasts just didn't care about the store because they were looking for different prey. Like that big 6 legged beast as big as "several blue whales" didn't feel like bothering to break into that little store because it was going around looking for bigger prey, maybe it was looking for the ocean so it could hunt actual blue whales? Anyway it's not mentioned exact reasons in the movie, we can come up with some speculatives reasons but no reliable sources say. Popish Plot (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Dead Alums

[edit]

There are three WD alums in this movie. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Town's Warning Siren!

[edit]

According to the article, as it is now, the siren sounded after the tremors. But as I'm viewing it now, I thought the siren preceded them. I'll review the scene. But if I'm right, I'm wondering how I would edit that paragraph. Okay. The people heard that siren, before they could see the mist, and heard it even as the bloody runner, was arriving on the scene. It happened before the tremors! LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would the German title be?

[edit]

Thanks to an episode of, "Counting Cars", I learned that in German, "mist", means, "manure". So in Germany, what would their title for the novel, the movie, and the series, be, if not, "The Mist"? Also, so would that be the probable origin of people saying, "Shitty weather that we're having today", probably as a pun? 🤔 LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shots Fired Equals Four. Then What?

[edit]

According to the article, as it is now, as I write this, the father didn't shoot his son. But I'm about to be done with the "AMC" version. In quick succession with no hesitation, he shot the elderly man and woman, who were seated behind him, and the blonde and his son, who were seated beside him. Knowing that he had no more bullets left, he still tried to shoot himself anyway. In anguish, he begins to sob-scream-shout, and then the mist lifts as the military convoy begins passing by him. So, is there really a version in which he doesn't shoot his son? LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of Brent Norton

[edit]

Just watched this film last night for the first time in years. The film article says that the lawyer Brent Norton walks out into the Mist and gets devoured. Are we sure that's true? I thought he walks out, still believing it all to be a hoax, and is never seen again. The moustachio'd guy goes out next with a rope round his middle - he gets devoured and they pull his bottom half back into the shop. I was expecting to see Norton either dead in the pharmacy (they find the Military Policeman in there, his body used as a host by parasitic spiders like in an "Alien" film) or in the rescue truck at the end, along with the woman and her kids. But no. Maybe he dies in the novel (which I used to have, but have mislaid) but not in the film. It's expired from All4 CatchUp (a UK Channel), so I can't watch it again. Paulturtle (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Agreed, we never see him again and his fate is unknown. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Paulturtle (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film is a little bit contradictory because a bit later (c. 1 hr 07 mins in) when the hero and his gang are discussing leaving (in the dark at the back of the supermarket) the blonde woman says something to the effect of "look what happened to Norton and his group" and the hero says words to the effect of "no, they got 200 yards - the length of the rope - which is enough for us to get to a car" (that refers to the guy with the moustache who goes out next with a rope round his middle - he gets devoured and they pull his bottom half back into the shop). That makes me suspect that Brent Norton may have been eaten in the book and the scriptwriters may have slipped up. But in the film we do NOT see what happens to Brent and his group.Paulturtle (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now somebody has "trimmed" it, so we can have the same argument all over again at some point in the next few years. Gives us something to look forward to.Paulturtle (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mist_(film)&oldid=1224022955"