Talk:The Mist (film)

message: 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)
thread_title: Some Interesting Trivia to Note

message: ===1===
*Stephen King adapts to Hollywood
*Comic-Con '07: Two Clips From The Mist!
*SDCC 07: Chatting in The Mist
*SDCC O7: First Look at The Mist
*Behind the Scenes of The Mist Based on a Stephen King Story 
*ShowEast to close high on Darabont
*An Exclusive Interview with Mr. Frank Darabont!
*ShowEast to honor Frank Darabont
*Frank Darabont and Stephen King reteam for tense, terrifying ’Mist’
*The core of a horror flick: 'The Mist' features dozens of local extras
===2===
*INTERVIEW: Stephen King and Director Frank Darabont Talk The Mist
*An Englishman with a gun
*Today's fears emerge in Stephen King horror flick 'The Mist'
*Frank Darabont dares to alter a Stephen King classic: ‘The Mist’
*A Foggy Reunion With Horror’s Master
*Long-time Stephen King director Frank Darabont signs on for The Mist
*The Beast Stays In The Mist
*Braugher Is Mist's Skeptic
*Mist Had Lots Of Help
*Mist Alters King's Ending
*King Praises The Mist
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: *INTERVIEW: Stephen King and Director Frank Darabont Talk The Mist
*An Englishman with a gun
*Today's fears emerge in Stephen King horror flick 'The Mist'
*Frank Darabont dares to alter a Stephen King classic: ‘The Mist’
*A Foggy Reunion With Horror’s Master
*Long-time Stephen King director Frank Darabont signs on for The Mist
*The Beast Stays In The Mist
*Braugher Is Mist's Skeptic
*Mist Had Lots Of Help
*Mist Alters King's Ending
*King Praises The Mist
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Dark Tower

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pan's Poster 

message: 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)
thread_title: SPOILER ALERT - PLEASE ADD

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Differences from the novelization 

message: *The Mist: Guerilla Warfare, VFX-Style —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual effects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  bigger than a blue whale 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: From the Plot section

message: 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)
thread_title: Differences between the book and the film

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Billy's death 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ending tank

message: 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)
thread_title:  Billy's age 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Footnote 26 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corrected false info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Monster were afraid of glass? 

message: There are three WD alums in this movie.
98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walking Dead Alums 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Town's Warning Siren! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What would the German title be? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shots Fired Equals Four. Then What? 

message: 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)
replies: text: . Agreed, we never see him again and his fate is unknown. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of Brent Norton