Talk:The Mist (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Mist (film) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Some Interesting Trivia to Note

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)

  • There's another reference to King's work... The local newspaper is called "The Castle Rock Times," a nod to Castle Rock, a town featured in several of King's stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.255.144 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 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

  • Also, somewhat predictably, the book stands which Joe Eagleton knocks over when he is on fire are filled only with Stephen King novels (see the second Webisode on the official web site. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 08:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

[edit] 1

[edit] 2

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

[edit] Dark Tower

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)

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Synopsis

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)

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)
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)
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)
I also added an entry on Wikiquote; please feel free to expand it. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pan's Poster

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)

[edit] SPOILER ALERT - PLEASE ADD

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)

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)

  • "No" to spolier alert - Wikipedia is not an ad for films, products, etc. The article is about the movie. Readers do not need an "alert". Thanks, 199.212.20.3 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Differences from the novelization

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Visual effects

[edit] Reviews

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)

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 Films to see how they've been formatted in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

[edit] Alternative Endings?

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] bigger than a blue whale

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)

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)

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

[edit] From the Plot section

"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)

==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)

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)