The Mist: Movie Vs Book

[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!!!!!!'.