The Mist: Movie Vs Book

[terrain]

I've been a looooong time fan of Mr King, and I think this may have been one of the best adaptations of his books to screen.
The whole movie was so true to the written story, and that's got to be difficult to cover in such a surreal invasion of our world, with no in-depth investigation of why it happens. We hear a character talk of a rumour of army experiments, but other than that, we're expected to just deal with the situation.
Sure, it's a horror story, but as usual, it's King's handling of people's relationships, especially under torment, that binds the horror together into something more.
Some of the more "emotional" novels have crossed brilliantly into film (Green Mile, Shawshank, Hearts etc), but some of the "scarier" ones can really lose their feel if not handled properly. Pet Semetary, Misery and Cujo were all great adaptations, but some others have crashed and burned for me.
The second that I saw the painting of Roland in the house in one of the first scenes in The Mist, I knew we were in for a good one. How much did Stephen King have to do with the direction of The Mist, does anyone know? I think I remember an extra segment on the DVD- with him and the director chatting about the film?
The Mist movie ending was really risky but worked perfectly for me. Nice twist on a book that was pretty much open ended from memory (it's been a while), and it kept the sombre feel of the whole story. Thoughts?

[Moderator]

Steve approved the script which director, Frank Darabont, had written and then trusted Frank to bring it to the screen so was mostly hands off for the day-to-day aspects of the production. He has said that he wished he had thought of the ending that Frank came up with for the film but he knew that many fans would react negatively to it and that they were taking a huge risk with that change.

[smpflueger]

I loved the movie too. I've never been satisfied with the scary novels as movies. The Stand never was a scary novel for me and I liked the miniseries for telling the story even though it was just okay. The Mist, a short story/novella, ended up being very strong as a scary movie. I loved the ending. I want to write an opera based on the novel with that ending.

[michal]

He has said that he wished he had thought of the ending that Frank came up with for the film but he knew that many fans would react negatively to it and that they were taking a huge risk with that change.

I am one of those fans I'm afraid. I preferred the slightly more optimist open-ending of the book over the complete pointless and to my opinion tacky ending of the movie. But of course, it's just an opinion :wink2:

[Pucker]

What I like specifically about the movie ending is that David thought he had plumbed the darkest depths of horror and was finally ready to face whatever came out of the mist for him.

But he was wrong, wasn't he?

I can well believe that Mr. King wished he had thought of that.

It was perfect.

[Asatru]

I'm torn. I loved the novella's open endedness, but I'm sure if I'd seen the movie 1st, I'd have been happy with it. I am glad King approved, I was wondering about that!

[JellybeanJay]

I saw the movie when it first came out and was really disturbed by the ending. I found that I was still thinking about it days later. I just recently finished the novella and was much more satisfied by the ending as it was written. I like the open ending because it left me free to use my imagination to end the story how ever I wanted.

[Doktor_Slyus]

I think that book is always better than movie.
But in this case I can tell you that movie is great, especially the final scene :cool2:

[Sigmund]

I read the story long before a movie was even thought of. I liked the ending in the story.
The ending of the movie was a punch in the throat which made it fantastic IMHO. Imagine, as far as you know the world is coming to a quick . grisly end. you have only four bullets, your little boy and three virtual strangers looking to you to fix things and you step up to the plate and put everyone out of a future of misery, horror, pain. You take the hit and are alone in the world of hell and then......here comes help.(Punch to the throat)

[blunthead]

I liked the movie. I felt it portrayed the experience described in the book very well, including the very intense drug store scenes, and it was high quality through and through, especially in terms of the special visual effects. I prefer the short story ending, though, especially as the movie ending lacks believability, imho.

[Madame A]

I saw the movie when it first came out and was really disturbed by the ending. I found that I was still thinking about it days later. .

I loved it but it really got to me. I'm amazed at how many movies/books haunt me now that I'm a mom. I can't imagine being put in that position to choose to do something so horrible, thinking it's the best for all involved.

[milkguy420]

loved both movie and story. the ending of the movie was horrific and felt true to King's technique. i believe that people who don't read books and only watch movies would have felt cheated if Frank Darabont used the story's ending. people mostly want closure to movies, whereas people who read more are happy to accept an open-ended ending---it keeps the story alive (kinda like the movie Inception).

[bobledrew]

One other point -- Frank Darabont, the director, has had a long association with Stephen King's work. He directed The Mist, Shawshank, Green Mile, and wrote an adaptaton (that I'd love to see) of "The Woman in the Room" way back in 1983. I'd figure he's got carte blanche after his track record of both commercial success and respect for the source material.

[Sigmund]

In the movie, Marcia Gay Harding (sp) was excellent as Mrs.Carmody. She played the part very well turning people's fear to the point that they were willing to murder and even sacrifice a young innocent child to save their own lives.

[IndigoRunner]

I don't like the way the movie ended. I would found some type of building and run for it OR just stay in the car and wait....They cannot get it in and as long as you are alive there is hope.....

[Silhouette86]

I haven't read the novella, but the movie was really good. It gives me all the more incentive to read the novella. I'll eventually get to it.

[Bryan James]

I read the story first. Much likey.

Saw the movie eventually...fine enough...but hated the ending.

I kept thinking about that crappy ending. Man, I hate that sucky ending. WTF is this, a horror movie?

After therapy, several soiled straightjackets, and a lot of Thorazine, I realized that the movie's last tidbit was a rare Hollywood pinnacle.

There's no happy "Forrest Gump" feather blowing in the breeze.

~BJS

[SharonC]

I am one of those fans I'm afraid. I preferred the slightly more optimist open-ending of the book over the complete pointless and to my opinion tacky ending of the movie. But of course, it's just an opinion :wink2:

Me too. I'm one of those "half glass full" people.

[erika tuchbaum]

Loved the ending to the film... loved the book ending as well but with a movie, they changed the ending perfectly that brought it into terror levels of the human soul. That's what I read for and sometimes I get it and sometimes I don't.

[plgordon]

I share your thoughts on the translation from book to screen, Some good, some not so good. I was at a book signing that Stephen did in Vermont, and if I'm not mistaken he spoke on this very topic, specifically "The Mist". I think Ms. Mod prety much sums up what he had to say about giving The Mist over to Hollywood. For the record I also liked the book ending better. and if anyone who reads this was at that UTD signing, give me a shout, and let me know that I'm not crazy

[Damaris]

I loved the hope of the novella ending ... which is a King staple and one of the things I love most of his work. (Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, right?) But still, that was an awesome movie ending. I don't consider it better than the written ending, just different, a peek at one possibility of what might have happened down the road. It's not much different than what Darabont did with The Shawshank Redemption, carrying the story beyond what was actually written. The biggest change was that Shawshank ended more optimistically. It could as easily have ended with Red behind bars again, which would not have been bad, necessarily, but would certainly have put a different spin on the end. All in all, I think The Mist was extremely well done as a movie, stayed true to its written predecessor, and offered just enough twist to be really provocative. I still give it two thumbs up. :smile2:

[RJD]

Here's the link for The Woman in the Room. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6XuCbpmc6Q



One other point -- Frank Darabont, the director, has had a long association with Stephen King's work. He directed The Mist, Shawshank, Green Mile, and wrote an adaptaton (that I'd love to see) of "The Woman in the Room" way back in 1983. I'd figure he's got carte blanche after his track record of both commercial success and respect for the source material.

[Seangier]

Bottom line, David Drayton never would have killed his son Billy. This rewrite/adaptation of one of King's best works turned out tragic.

[bryantburnette]

There are numerous King works which feature the death of children: Cujo, Pet Sematary, The Gunslinger , 'Salem's Lot, and It are probably the most obvious examples, but child death is also a major motivating factor in "The Body" and Roadwork, as well as The Green Mile, and the threat of it looms large over Storm of the Century, Bag of Bones, and The Shining, to name just a few.

In other words, this is one of the major themes within King's work.

With that in mind, Darabont's ending not only seems completely logical within the context of the movie itself, it also seems completely logical within the context of the larger body of Stephen King's work. It's a stronger ending than the one King himself wrote for the novella, and while I've got a few small-ish problems with the movie, the ending is definitely not one of them: it's a masterpiece of a conclusion, one which people will continue to talk about for decades to come.

[The Goremet]

One of the reasons I love the film's ending over the novellas ending (which is a great and typical King ending) is that it shocks the viewer. Hollywood is not known for leaving an audience with such a pessimistic conclusion, but under Darabont's masterful hand he gives us an ending that you can hate and be stunned by but is just as open to discussion as King's original. When David see the woman with her kids (the lady who everyone in the market told to stay with them) it opens up the whole film for debate. Was Mrs Carmody right?? Was this faith at work? Or is is just bad luck? The fact that in the book it seems the creatures are trying to get away from the humans is also a poignant and interesting thing. AND FOR YOU DARK TOWER FANS, this story is tied to the DT saga since it is believed the creatures came from Mid-World.

[Ronin87]

Well, lets see here...The movie was interesting, not a horror but a science fiction, not scary but entertaining - yes. i did enjoy the movie a bit. The book, went a little more in depth with some parts i questioned which i liked. Again not scary but im sure it wasn't supposed to be. To each his own i know, but i have to give it 2.5 out of 5 stars. Well written yes, i just wasn't as hooked as say, cell or bachman's running man. Good read though. On to IT!

[The Paladin of Eld]

I remain torn over the ending. I would have LOVED it had Sai King written the movie ending in his original story, but I hate that they made such a fundamental change to a movie that otherwise stayed very true to the original work.

[91rewoT]

Didn't see the movie, just listened to the audiobook - which was fantastic, IMO. Glad I didn't watch it though, after reading the posts and learning the ending was changed.

[Chuggs]

I am one of those fans I'm afraid. I preferred the slightly more optimist open-ending of the book over the complete pointless and to my opinion tacky ending of the movie. But of course, it's just an opinion :wink2:

I think that the ending of the movie was a very realistic take on what someone in such a situation might do. It was heartbreaking, but I thought it worked. The books ending is great too. Just my two cents, and maybe a penny thrown in for good measure. :wink2:

[fushingfeef]

Really though does anyone remember how the original story ended? It is a more open-ended ending that would not be satisfying for having sat through 100 minutes.

[Pucker]

Really though does anyone remember how the original story ended? It is a more open-ended ending that would not be satisfying for having sat through 100 minutes.

This is a pretty good point that hasn't really been addressed in the thread.

I think a "hopeful" open-ended conclusion is much more palatable in a book than on film. You invest a lot more of your time and emotion into reading a book, and the best stories always leave us wondering what might happen to our favorite characters next (if they survive) and part of the fun is imagining as your fancy dictates how such scenarios might play out.

Film -- particularly an adventure film -- is much more visceral and immediate, and its audience is much more likely (perhaps justifiably so) to demand that something "happen" to resolve the conflict and send them away sated. Fail to do this and you leave yourself open to charges of merely setting up the sequel . . . which is common enough in itself.

Frankly I think both versions are perfectly fine for their respective media and, while I don't regard either as anywhere near either artist's best work, I also don't think anything about either project detracts from the other in any way.

[bryantburnette]

The only argument that I've encountered yet which made me think that the ending of the novella had ANY chance of working in a movie is that it is somewhat similar to the ending of The Birds. That's a fair point, and since The Birds is one of my favorite movies, I can buy that it would have worked for The Mist, too.

But the end of the movie suited the movie perfectly.

[LEELEEBG]

I loved the books open ending. Because it leave so much up to the readers imagination, and with the way SK writes you can go wild with what could be thought up>>>

[guido tkp]

on the ending...i hated it then...hate it now

could go over all the reasons...but so many have already done so, so i see no point: it is ground well covered

having read all the posts tho...i find myself musing upon a bit of a thought on darabonts ending...and it goes like this:

IF the car had been swarmed by monsters...prowling about, rocking the car, menacing them...i could see it: maybe the monsters were running away, in thier own last ditch effort to escape the army: upon misinterpreting the swarm about thier car...

but, of course...there was nothing around them

IF they, having run out of gas, they saw a building, made a run for it, heard the monsters come closer...closer...and, then, made the decision...only to have the monsters scatter as the army rolls

but, as the film exists...there was no imminent threat at thier door !!

but to have the army roll into view literally as the gunshots echo begins to fade is a rape of the idea that this man supposedly cared for these people...especially his son.

at that point, in what we knew from darabonts version of the story told: no creature had specifuiaclly broke into anything...so...these people had at least a day or ten of food before they had to resort to what he did, barring an attack

but what we see he needed only 2-5 minutes, at best...

it wasn't horror that darabont/david drayton portrayed...but cowardice and stupidity

[Moderator]

The way I thought of it was that Frank was trying to emphasize the consequences of what happens when we give up hope. The ending he came up with did that in a very visceral way. Didn't you think to yourself long after the movie about what a terrible mistake it was that David Drayton made? Would you have had the same reaction going with the original ending or would you have thought nice movie but not that memorable? I'm personally a more positive, glass half-full sort of person and like the idea that we should hang onto hope even when the odds don't seem to favor it and the bleaker ending hit me hard. The person I was watching the premiere with was in tears and it took him a bit to regain control. I don't feel the ending was a gut punch for the sake of shock value, though; I think it was intended to make you think about choices we make and above all, to keep hope alive.

[Ebdim9th]

To me, the David Drayton of the story was just the kind of guy to keep hope alive to the very end, the David D. in the movie was not...

[guido tkp]

well, ms mod, with all due respect...i did not and do not find the ending 'horrific' in the slightest...i find it maddening...it just does not make sense given the 'facts' on the ground in that movie at that time.

i could understand it if they'd been out of gas for a while...if they were out of food...if every time they opened the door, a monster appeared...

if the monsters wree closing in...at the door...breaking in

but that was simply not the case...either through the movie or at that moment

i 'get' the idea that there is a certain form of bravery in that act when needed... but in the time frame of the movie,for the reasons given, it simply was not necessary at that moment

i've had no problem in other horror movies...in other movies, when the motivation is a clear and present danger...there was no clear and present danger at that moment.

what he did was give up all hope, right away...and not because the story demanded such....uh-uh...

and something that drastic, that...final, could've been written/filmed as such, if needed...make the movie five minutes longer to explain that dire situation..that dire need at that exact moment...

but that is not what happened

in fact, after listening to darabonts commentary...what i come away with is 1) he felt the film needed an ending: this goes against so much of anything and everything i know and think about film adaptions as to boggle the mind - who cares what the director wants...film the story...that is why you bought it...the ending, ambigious as it may seem, offers both a slim ray of hope and a dismal outlook for the future..and enough wiggle room to write a really great sequel...but, no...

2) he desired the movie to be of a certain length...he had a time frame in mind and was determined to get that done over the constraint of basic good, honest, compelling storytelling...he repeatedly mentions he wanted a movie under two hours...this decision is/was rash in the extreme...the monsters were no imminent threat...what occurs is a sudden failure of all hope...quite out of character

i'm thinking about a couple of really great movies of recent history...Titanic, Dances With Wolves...Amadeus...each have great directors telling a great and yet personal stories...each are powerful depictions of a wide variety of human emotions...

none are constrained by an ego deciding that the most important thing is how long the movie is...or how much sense a sudden character change might make, just to get things moving along...

each director uses the canvas of the script and the field of the screen to paint vivid images...haunting images...wherein everything that happens, no matter how dire, makes sense...

Ebdim was entierly correct..while it seemd no hope cpould be there...the david of the book left us thinking that, wahatever happened...the last thing he would do is THAT

the david of the movie ??

he collapsed into murder when hope was not yet extinguished.

i jested a couple of times that david should've just 'taken' the chick in an amorous way...that doing so would spend a few minutes of time where-in the mist would've parted and lives would be saved...

but the main point of that is that the bastard only needed to wait a minute or two to find out he didn't need to automatically turn to cold blooded murder...

just a couple of minutes...something that frank 'i'm in a hurry' darabont didn't think was all that necessary to tell a good tale

[juliana_319]

Read the book first, saw the movie later... Absolutly LOVED the book... yet the movie... huh.. not so much, and exactly because of the ending. I know, Mr. King always leaves us with an open ending, I know he does and I'm always expecting exactly that. I preffer to imagine what could happen, still I understand that open endings doesn't always work for movies, so I get why in every King's book based movie they come up with an ending. And, let's face it, of all the movies baseed on King's novels is one of the best endings... Still, preffer the book. By far.

[champ1966]

It's a horror film,I think it was quite a fitting alternate ending as opposed to the novella.What could be more horrific than killing your own son mere mintesbefore salvation.Definitely one of the better adaptions of SK's works.

[kingricefan]

I read the novella when it was first published in Dark Forces. The ending of the story left me scratching my head, I have to admit. There was quite alot of other readers that felt the same. For me, those last lines sum it up (***spoiler alert!!! "Two words that sound abit alike. One of them is hope."- The only word that I can think of that sounds abit like hope is no(pe). Therefore, there was no hope for them. I don't know, maybe King meant 'home' and not 'no' as the word that sounds abit like hope? But, to me the entire story (which I love) is a downer and that the ending was meant to be a downer also. Little by little the monsters (alien and human) begin to win. So, in my, Darabont stayed true to the story with his ending in the film. That ending still brings chills (and a tear to my eye). I know what's going to happen, and yet I find myself holding my breath, internally screaming 'NONONONONONO!!!!!!'.

[guido tkp]

what could be more horrific ?/
well..since you asked...imagine the same scene...
as the jeep begins to sputter, they see a small shack coming out of the mist...they manage to escape out of the jeep and make it to the nearby building.

but they hera the monsters coming...

they discuss, briefly, what needs to be done...they get prepare...hig, kiss, cry...

and as david lifts the gun...a tentacle comes out of the mist, grabing his arm, taking both it and the gun...he is held by the beast as more tentatcles swarm in...

helpless he sees his child, who asked him...begged him not to let the monsters get him...be swept up, into the mist...

competely helpless...and he, too, begins his ascent itno hell...with a dying look over his shoulder, he sees the jeep...

as the screams of the others begins to fade , as his life ebbs...he hears the sound of tanks...the army arrives...they begin shooting the monsters

if they'd just stayed in the jeep...they would've been alright....

[crystalglimmer]

No clue why King would second guess the best novella ever written. I could not wait for the movie and was hugely disappointed. Hated the ending. I still read The Mist - it was scary and delicious - kinda like a KFC meal! I would love to see a remake - a lot closer to the author's vision. Frances Sternhagen as Carmody and a little closer to the story (strike that - a lot closer to the story!) and I would have been happy. I waited a long time for that movie and was hugely disappointed.

[crystalglimmer]

Did I mention I waited a very, very long time for the movie - as I am sure all of you did. I would still rather re-read the novella than watch the movie. Somehow, I could see Stephen King getting ticked over someone crushing his 5/10/20 cents more than/better than Thomas Jane. Did not buy Andre Braugher as Brent - although I like Andre Braugher. And that said

Mod - I hope to be welcomed back when and if I can get over a site monitored this closely. I tried, I really did. But as mentioned, I play a kid's site that does not have these stringent rules. It's not that I would not abide - it's that I cannot abide such censorship on a free and open net. I understand spam and all - anyone with an e-mail does. And dog knows, I adore the man. I feel like I have wandered into a nest of genius and should not be here...or a nest of bees and have been unmercifully stung. Either way, much as I love the man, I honestly can't abide the censorship. With respect.

[AaronscottJ]

Hope. That was the message of the book. The movie destroyed that message. I loved it up until the end I love Frank Darabont and Stephen King. But I cannot watch the movie without shutting it off when the camera pans out from the car. To present a film without an ending may not be Hollywood but it would have been the best choice. Keeping the short haired lady alive and ignoring the dinosaur monster who was only added because of the special fx team were two other mistakes... But I wish a film this good had received the (non) ending it deserved.

[mjs9153]

Funny,never noticed before all the Mist alumni in The Walking Dead..Dale,Andrea,Carol..
I liked both endings,each fits the specific venue they were portrayed in..the book's ending left me thinking about it for a long time,how far did they get,what happened..while the movie ending graphically portrayed the end of a no win situation..can SK do a cameo on the Walking Dead please,wanna see him chop the Governor and take over the town!:brightidea:

[AchtungBaby]

The movie was alright, but the novella was way better. I hated the movie's ending. Hated it. :n:

[jajatoff]

Finally got a copy of the book - first having seen the movie.

My thoughts (for what they are worth): There is no horror greater than man's ability to get it wrong.

The project arrowhead got it wrong.
The mad christian got it wrong.
And finally, our hero got it wrong.
I thought it was a great ending for the movie. Brave and risky (knowing how addicted to saccharine we can get) but I think it worked brilliantly. Because the final horror is actually not the bugs, nor the bird-things, nor the spiders, nor the giant tenticular big-whatsits. The final horror was man.

I also enjoyed the book and one of the reasons I think the film worked well was that it was mostly true to the book (ending not withstanding).

Would he really have shot his son? I think so -to protect against the nightmare torture of the creatures that were plainly still around. Would I have done it? Well, that's another story LOL. I'd probably have waited until the last minute when some beast was breaking into the car...

So yes, I thought book AND film were great and, for me, there is no horror greater than that which man brings on himself.

[rollie]

i love the books over the movies. i have collected every stephen king book bar 4. i would say that there has only been a couple of movies that havent done the books justice, "It" being one of them. By far i am a book over the movie. mind you i would, if i had the interest and inclination, to buy the movies to marry my book collection.

Mist i believe was a fantastic rendition of the book, quite suspenceful. i loved it. but the ending for me in the book and movie was a bit disappointing. i dont knock a stephen king though.

id love a gunslinger movie

[guido tkp]

jaja !!

are you sure your last name is not really binks ?

anyway..."The final horror was man"...nice...best answer to the conundrum of that repulsive ending i've ever seen ..nice...almost makes it palatable...almost...good job, ol' sport !!

and then...you go all "i'd probably waited...beast breaking in...'

correct-a-mundo, pard'...and that right there is why i hated the ending...we knew, from the book, that was exactly what he was thinking he might have to do...under the last case, worst scenario...but that was not at all what was happeining when he cold bloodedly murdered all of them...including own, wee child...

beasts breaking in...no way out...understandable...

what we saw...unforgivable

[Expert Rathad]

In short, both a amazing but I prefer reading... :)

[Chuggs]

I liked the ending of both. I saw the movie first, but I still liked both endings. The way the characters acted at the end of the movie was likely the way real people would act in a similar situation. It left me sad but satisfied, and, like another post-er said, it left me thinking about it for a while. Both are great.

[Chris1974100]

yup i agree both endings are good

[Spideyman]

Enjoyed both endings. Read the book first, then saw the movie. It appears even SK approved of/liked the ending of the movie:
"Frank wrote a new ending that I loved. It is the most shocking ending ever and there should be a law passed stating that anybody who reveals the last 5 minutes of this film should be hung from their neck until dead."

[Chris1974100]

for me both endings are brilliant