The Mist (spoilers)

[SylasGaunt]

What documentary look are you talking about?

[Admiral Valdemar]

It looked too good. It was overproduced, like a bad pop song. Cheapen it up a little; replace some of the CGI with rubber muppets. Give it a cheesy synthesizer theme. It's about monsters laying siege to a supermarket!

Some of the lines could've been re-written. I've always thought Steven King's dialog sounded weird when spoken out-loud.

The "documentary look" was totally unnecessary. It doesn't really add anything, it's just distracting.

These are little complaints though. I don't think it's great, but it's probably one of the better horror movies to come out in the past 10 years.

Also, did anyone notice an absence of large-chested models in tight t-shirts? What kind of bullshit is that? It seems like Frank Darabont thinks we are able to watch a movie without zoning out and staring at the nearest pair of breasts. Weird, huh?

Clearly this is evidence why you shouldn't, and never will, be allowed to make movies.

And it's fucking Stephen King. Christ.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Yes, but...the emotional impact is "Fuck, now I'm depressed." Why would anyone actually pay money for something like that?

If that's your entire reaction to the thing, then you're fucking doing it wrong. But addressing the question in a different manner: Would anyone actually pay money to watch a money that stirs their emotions with something other than a positive ending? Yes, fuck yes.

The whole point of movies is to get people into an emotional state. It doesn't matter if the emotional state is overly positive or negative, if the movie gets someone to achieve the desired state in a smooth manner, the net result is positive. I don't leave those kind of movies thinking "Wow, now I'm all depressed." I leave those movies thinking, "Wow, that ending got my emotions up, put me in a really thoughtful mood, and stirred my own creative side. That was fucking awesome!"

To take your logic further: Do you hate somber music because it doesn't put you in a positive emotional state either, no matter who actually good the music is? Some classical symphonies (and more modern stuff) get me sniffling just because the music itself is so sad, yet so excellently done. There's a song by VAST called 'Desert Garden' which made my girlfriend and I pretty much bawl when we saw it live, simply because we could relate so well to the desire just to fucking leave everything for a better looking horizon... yet we loved the song and the band. You must have *hated* John Carpenter's 'The Thing', as most all the people die, and the end makes it look like the two survivors will shortly freeze to death, even after they kill the alien.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Also, did anyone notice an absence of large-chested models in tight t-shirts? What kind of bullshit is that? It seems like Frank Darabont thinks we are able to watch a movie without zoning out and staring at the nearest pair of breasts. Weird, huh?

And this just about sums up why your opinion counts for jack and shit. Some of us, amazingly, don't have the mentality of a thirteen year old boy.

[Rye]

Yes, but...the emotional impact is "Fuck, now I'm depressed." Why would anyone actually pay money for something like that?

If that's your entire reaction to the thing, then you're fucking doing it wrong. But addressing the question in a different manner: Would anyone actually pay money to watch a money that stirs their emotions with something other than a positive ending? Yes, fuck yes.

You would almost think that tragedy had some sort of dramatic tradition or something.

Godless, I've not met someone with that outlook since primary school, and even then I knew it was bollocks. As for Trav, it's obvious some irony is involved, but it's difficult to tell what his original point was. For now, I'll agree with the "you shouldn't make films" conclusion. Exploitation cinema has its place (From Dusk Till Dawn, Freddy vs Jason, etc), but much like demanding all monster movies be like Godzilla and stuff like Cloverfield is automatically bad, demanding everything in a certain genre conform to what you want to see is just asinine and boring.

[Molyneux]

Yes, but...the emotional impact is "Fuck, now I'm depressed." Why would anyone actually pay money for something like that?

If that's your entire reaction to the thing, then you're fucking doing it wrong. But addressing the question in a different manner: Would anyone actually pay money to watch a money that stirs their emotions with something other than a positive ending? Yes, fuck yes.

You would almost think that tragedy had some sort of dramatic tradition or something.

Godless, I've not met someone with that outlook since primary school, and even then I knew it was bollocks. As for Trav, it's obvious some irony is involved, but it's difficult to tell what his original point was. For now, I'll agree with the "you shouldn't make films" conclusion. Exploitation cinema has its place (From Dusk Till Dawn, Freddy vs Jason, etc), but much like demanding all monster movies be like Godzilla and stuff like Cloverfield is automatically bad, demanding everything in a certain genre conform to what you want to see is just asinine and boring.

You know what? Fuck you. Both of you.
Shakespeare's King Lear? Shit. Well-written shit.
Ethan Frome is the worst fucking book I've ever read; it doesn't even have the entertainment value of The Eye of Argon.

Tragedy can be an effective tool. Macbeth and Hamlet both used it well. But I have every goddamn right to go into a movie and not expect it to be used as a cheap gag to grab an emotional response.

I'm doing it wrong? It's a damn movie. It's a goddamn subjective assessment no matter how you look at it. You're going to say that I'm wrong to think that I don't want to fucking waste money on a downer ending? Well, screw you too.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Tragedy can be an effective tool. Macbeth and Hamlet both used it well. But I have every goddamn right to go into a movie and not expect it to be used as a cheap gag to grab an emotional response.

Hey, you've got that strawman going up in flames pretty damn well. Here, I brought a canister of napalm to help things along.

You will, of course, point out where I, Zuul, and others in this thread tried to justify 'cheap gags', or we will take that strawman and shove it, still burning, up your ass.

I'm doing it wrong? It's a damn movie. It's a goddamn subjective assessment no matter how you look at it. You're going to say that I'm wrong to think that I don't want to fucking waste money on a downer ending? Well, screw you too.

It's a goddamn play, it's a goddamn song. Well HOLEEEEY SHEEE-IT Cletus, it looks like a movie, much like music or a play, is a form of media, an 'art-form' some might say. Some are really fucking good, others aren't. Hey, yours is just a subjective assessment of a 'damn play' as well, so mind showing us the difference? Oh wait, there is none you fallacy-spewing shitpipe.

You came in here, so full of righteous cynicism and demanded to know how anyone could "Pay money to come out of the theatre feeling depressed". I and a few others showed you not only exactly how this could happen, but also how it applies to far more than just movies. And then you frantically start dragging the goalposts are claim, oh, well plays aren't the same at *all*. I mean, they're not a performance art, a form of entertainment meant to please audiences and make money, are they? It's *completely* different, isn't it?

Or maybe you're just full of shit. So you know what? Follow your own suggestion: Go fuck yourself.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Oh, and as a slight aside, I love how he attempts to use the fact that it's a 'subjective assessment' to try and excuse the fact that it's a completely stupid assessment based off of piss-poor reasoning and false-generalizations.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Also, did anyone notice an absence of large-chested models in tight t-shirts? What kind of bullshit is that? It seems like Frank Darabont thinks we are able to watch a movie without zoning out and staring at the nearest pair of breasts. Weird, huh?

And this just about sums up why your opinion counts for jack and shit. Some of us, amazingly, don't have the mentality of a thirteen year old boy.

I'm fairly sure he was being sarcastic. At least it looks enough like a parody of the Common Moviegoer that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm just glad they had the balls to go with that ending, even if I think some of the acting was little too over the top.

Gotta love Ollie the supermarket hero. The movie is worth watching just for his scenes alone.

Oh, and ytmnd has wasted no time finding the comedic value of the Mist.

[Molyneux]

You will, of course, point out where I, Zuul, and others in this thread tried to justify 'cheap gags', or we will take that strawman and shove it, still burning, up your ass.

Sorry that I wasn't more clear: I haven't yet seen the movie, but the ending of The Mist sounds to me like just that kind of "cheap gag" ending. Did I ever say that you and Zuul did justify cheap gags?

I'm doing it wrong? It's a damn movie. It's a goddamn subjective assessment no matter how you look at it. You're going to say that I'm wrong to think that I don't want to fucking waste money on a downer ending? Well, screw you too.

It's a goddamn play, it's a goddamn song. Well HOLEEEEY SHEEE-IT Cletus, it looks like a movie, much like music or a play, is a form of media, an 'art-form' some might say. Some are really fucking good, others aren't. Hey, yours is just a subjective assessment of a 'damn play' as well, so mind showing us the difference? Oh wait, there is none you fallacy-spewing shitpipe.

You pimple-faced shithead, a subjective assessment is exactly what I was giving. I responded to the idiotic statement of "You're doing it wrong".[/quote]

You came in here, so full of righteous cynicism and demanded to know how anyone could "Pay money to come out of the theatre feeling depressed". I and a few others showed you not only exactly how this could happen, but also how it applies to far more than just movies. And then you frantically start dragging the goalposts are claim, oh, well plays aren't the same at *all*. I mean, they're not a performance art, a form of entertainment meant to please audiences and make money, are they? It's *completely* different, isn't it?

What have you been reading? When did I say that plays should be viewed differently than movies in this respect?[/quote]

Or maybe you're just full of shit. So you know what? Follow your own suggestion: Go fuck yourself.

Nice comeback, there. Really impressive demonstration of wit and intellect. Just remember to tell yourself, they're laughing with you.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Sorry that I wasn't more clear: I haven't yet seen the movie, but the ending of The Mist sounds to me like just that kind of "cheap gag" ending. Did I ever say that you and Zuul did justify cheap gags?

So, you haven't even seen the movie and you've already jumped to the conclusion that it's a cheap-gag ending? My, you must be a paragon of good judgment. And no, you never directly said we were trying to justify cheap-gags. Instead you merely used the phrase 'cheap-gag' in direct response to what Zuul and I posted in regards to not-happy endings. Just because it isn't in one easy to post sentence doesn't mean it isn't there.

You pimple-faced shithead, a subjective assessment is exactly what I was giving. I responded to the idiotic statement of "You're doing it wrong".

You are doing it wrong you ignorant little bitch.

You panned this movie that you've never even seen because it had a 'cheap gag' ending, as you claimed. You then went on to wonder why *anyone* would want to pay money to see a movie that doesn't have a happy ending. When called on your bullshit by multiple people, you backpeddle furiously and try to claim you were only giving a 'subjective assessment', as if that excuses the fact that you jumped to an idiotic conclusion and spewed out a false-generalization in the process. Try again, retard.

What have you been reading? When did I say that plays should be viewed differently than movies in this respect?

Ahem:

Tragedy can be an effective tool. Macbeth and Hamlet both used it well. But I have every goddamn right to go into a movie and not expect it to be used as a cheap gag to grab an emotional response.

You didn't even take the time to see whether or not the ending of 'The Mist' was a 'cheap-gag' before labeling it as such. You go on to claim that any ending in a movie that isn't happy is simply not worth watching by any reasonable person, in your opinion. You then go on to claim that tragedy (read: Not happy ending) can be done really well in plays.

Exactly what part of that *isn't* claiming the two should be viewed differently in that respect you moronic little twit?

Or maybe you're just full of shit. So you know what? Follow your own suggestion: Go fuck yourself.

Nice comeback, there. Really impressive demonstration of wit and intellect. Just remember to tell yourself, they're laughing with you.

Yup, I can see how the entire thread is fully with you on this one. Yeah, everyone's jumped to your defense and you certainly don't have me, Zuul, RI, Stark and others calling you on your idiocy.

Just keep telling yourself that you witless shitstain.

[Molyneux]

Sorry that I wasn't more clear: I haven't yet seen the movie, but the ending of The Mist sounds to me like just that kind of "cheap gag" ending. Did I ever say that you and Zuul did justify cheap gags?

So, you haven't even seen the movie and you've already jumped to the conclusion that it's a cheap-gag ending? My, you must be a paragon of good judgment. And no, you never directly said we were trying to justify cheap-gags. Instead you merely used the phrase 'cheap-gag' in direct response to what Zuul and I posted in regards to not-happy endings. Just because it isn't in one easy to post sentence doesn't mean it isn't there.

"Sounds like" does not equal "is", you strawmanning, hare-lipped spawn of a retarded frog and Rush Limbaugh. Especially when I've gone out of my way to say that I haven't seen the movie.

In case you can't tell, I'm not really taking the whole "pointless insult war" thing seriously anymore.

What have you been reading? When did I say that plays should be viewed differently than movies in this respect?

Ahem:

Tragedy can be an effective tool. Macbeth and Hamlet both used it well. But I have every goddamn right to go into a movie and not expect it to be used as a cheap gag to grab an emotional response.

You didn't even take the time to see whether or not the ending of 'The Mist' was a 'cheap-gag' before labeling it as such. You go on to claim that any ending in a movie that isn't happy is simply not worth watching by any reasonable person, in your opinion. You then go on to claim that tragedy (read: Not happy ending) can be done really well in plays.

Exactly what part of that *isn't* claiming the two should be viewed differently in that respect you moronic little twit?

Let me rephrase: Macbeth, Hamlet are examples of good use of tragedy. King Lear (which I mentioned directly before I did the other two Shakespeare works) is, as far as I'm concerned, not.

Or, equally well: Macbeth, Hamlet and Neverland are examples of good use of a tragic story.

Movie versus play had nothing to do with it.


More importantly: I made a one-off remark that degenerated into a minor flamewar that ended almost two weeks ago. My last post was twelve days before you jumped in. Why do you think I'm still interested in this argument in the slightest?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

More importantly: I made a one-off remark that degenerated into a minor flamewar that ended almost two weeks ago. My last post was twelve days before you jumped in. Why do you think I'm still interested in this argument in the slightest?

Because I only checked the date-tags of the last posts, rather than the dates in general. In the interests of not continuing intra-thread necromancy, I'm desisting in the tangent.

[Rye]

You know what? Fuck you. Both of you.

Heh, right...

Tragedy can be an effective tool.

Yes, so much so that it's one of the symbols most associated with drama in our culture (with a tradition going back to the 6th century BC).

Macbeth and Hamlet both used it well. But I have every goddamn right to go into a movie and not expect it to be used as a cheap gag to grab an emotional response.

You have a right to go into movies and expect people to know in advance what you want and cater to it? What?

I'm doing it wrong? It's a damn movie. It's a goddamn subjective assessment no matter how you look at it. You're going to say that I'm wrong to think that I don't want to fucking waste money on a downer ending? Well, screw you too.

I'm saying that "Downer endings almost invariably = shit" is just a silly (immature) value judgement by you. If a dramatic text sets out to accomplish a tragedy and you feel sad at the end, it's been effective, hasn't it?

[Stark]

Zuul, I said that ages ago. Sure, his statement that he doesn't like BAD downer endings (his 'cheap gag to grab an emotional response' description which apparently covers ALL endings that aren't happy enough) doesn't really support the idea that anything that stirs negative emotions is automatically shit. He's not interested in dramatic effectiveness, but just 'feeling good' as the criteria for a good ending. Otherwise it's just 'cheap' attempts to 'grab' something, rather than the culmination of the drama as intended by the author.

[Ford Prefect]

Sorry that I wasn't more clear: I haven't yet seen the movie, but the ending of The Mist sounds to me like just that kind of "cheap gag" ending.

And you have been told, several times, that this is not the case. The ending of The Mist is not 'cheap'.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wait, wait, WAIT. King Lear isn't a good tragedy all of a sudden? Does the queen know?!

[Rye]

Zuul, I said that ages ago. Sure, his statement that he doesn't like BAD downer endings (his 'cheap gag to grab an emotional response' description which apparently covers ALL endings that aren't happy enough) doesn't really support the idea that anything that stirs negative emotions is automatically shit. He's not interested in dramatic effectiveness, but just 'feeling good' as the criteria for a good ending. Otherwise it's just 'cheap' attempts to 'grab' something, rather than the culmination of the drama as intended by the author.

Interestingly (well, probably not, but I want to name drop since I have to do this shit), since I've got to do a 15 minute talk tomorrow on Raymond Williams and his analysis of modern culture, despite being an important analyst with "interleckshul" books under his belt and soforth, his main criticism of George fucking Orwell isn't to do with whether his works are good as novels or polemics, but whether they "depressed the community" at the end of it, lol!

And whoever it was that asked what the "documentary look" was, the cinematography that mimics the sudden uncertainty of documentary-style filming, rather than the slick stock hollywood style is in play a lot in this film (though a more "realistic" documentary look is in popular use at the moment in hollywood, and "shaky-cam" has always been popular). Think about nBSG and that cinematography, basically.

[Terralthra]

Wait, wait, WAIT. King Lear isn't a good tragedy all of a sudden? Does the queen know?!

I actually agree wholeheartedly. King Lear is a crappy play compared to Hamlet or Othello.

[Admiral Valdemar]

How, exactly, does one not end the damn story on a downer? Even if the mist and the subsequent inter-dimensional invasion of flora and fauna didn't engulf the world, they still took out a state, or at the very least, a town. The personal tragedy is bad enough for Drayton, but it's not like you can throw in "and they lived happily ever after" when presented with such a situation.

May as well go for a happy ending to Titanic.

[Next of Kin]

I watched "The Mist" this past Friday and just loved it. What made me take interest was the connection to the Gunslinger series. The obvious connection was Drayton painting a portrait of Roland, the rose and the tower. The other connections were the monsters themselves as I thought they might have been the creatures that lived in todash darkness.

[Ford Prefect]

I'm a little surprised none of the monsters started saying 'dadachock?'.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I watched "The Mist" this past Friday and just loved it. What made me take interest was the connection to the Gunslinger series. The obvious connection was Drayton painting a portrait of Roland, the rose and the tower. The other connections were the monsters themselves as I thought they might have been the creatures that lived in todash darkness.

Curiously, I saw that poster of the Gunslinger in the London Forbidden Planet today. Drew Struzan, the guy who did the posters for Star Wars, the Indy movies, Blade Runner and The Thing, to name a few, was the basis for Drayton's character.