Stephen King Loves The Mist's New Ending

The fact that King likes the film's ending just proves that even the most financially successful people do not necessarily have good taste. He doesn't want the ending to be spoiled before people pay to watch it because if it were, the people wouldn't pay.

the ending says one thing important:

Never say die.

Winners never quit. Quitters never win.

That's it. It depends on how you see the movie. It's a "don't do this" type of stuff. And it's quite powerful.

Nice flick!

Someone up there mentions that the Stephen King movies that stick completely true to the books are the best and then mentions a bunch of movies/books and I saw Shawshank among them. Did you read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption? It was nothing like the movie. The cops and jailor's didn't get screwed over in the ending like they did in the movie. Also, in the book there were several different people in charge of that prison unlike the movie that only had one. It was the ONLY stephen king movie that I actually liked better than the book. The book was great but the movie was freaking slick. The actors were top notch and the way the good guy screwed all them jerks over was priceless. Just goes to show that a SK movie can be better.....

I didn't like the Mists ending much. I guess I just love SK's books too much and want them to stay true but I was definitely shocked which was something the original ending probably wouldn't have done. I'll watch it again with my brother who hasn't read the story and see if I like it better the second time. I like the "unknown" quality of the books ending mixed with a little hope and mostly dread. This movie ending was blunt and horrible but it got a reaction out of me. I don't know if the books ending would have done that so I'll watch it again and see.......

i just shock and verry disapointed after watch it.

The ending reminded me of how we really felt on some days... frustrated, angry and helpless. I just screamed out loud after watching it! Felt good too... for a moment.

Pleeeease do yourself a favor and don't watch The Mist if you haven't already...i just wasted 2 hours of my life watching it. Very good ending until the last 5 minutes. A 900 ft creature...what the fuck it that? and then the dad kills his own son? thats both pathetic and unnecessary...and then JUST after the fact a bunch of fuckin tanks come rollin in to rescue everyone. and all they do is stare at him like retards..i think this movie is worse than the strangers and i almost smashed my tv after that piece of shiit...WOW

what's the original end of the mist? (in the novel, not the movie)
Como termina la novela originalmente?

Hi, people, excellent opinions...

Please excuse my english, I am not fro USA.

I just saw the movie in dvd.

I did not know it was Frank Darabont. When I was watching it, I liked the way it was being developed. When the tentacles appeared, I was dissapointed, and I thought "This is another horror movie". Later, with the Bugs, I was more interested, though I did not like the big prehistoric bird. What I really like wer the reactions of the actors, the way they were expressing emotions. The inner conflict in that supermarket where the human nature was in discussion. I loved Marcia Gay Harden performance, and I had that sensation that the proble wern't just the mis, but humans in conflict with no rules, no punishment, drunk with religion and fake hopes.

Thinking in that way, I beagn to love this movie since they returned from Pharmacy, with Jessup confrontation. And to be honest, From the moment when they finally space and get in the Car, with that emotive music, a song named "Host for Seraphine" I thoug the movie was perfect. I loved the whole scne with the mist, that music, that look in character face, that mess when normal guys began to fight each other and killed a religious leader.

And for me, the whol problem is that woman talking about revelations and the end of days. Perhaps, main characters were so scared, so desperated that they didn't think so well. Just picture being in that situation for 2 days, with that chaos with your neighborhood, where some religious fan kill a man without a good reason; Where real monster does exist and it seems you don't have a chance.

So, in the end, when they see that Huuuuuge and big monster (for me, the best scene of the movie) I don't know what kind of hope these 4 people could have. Remember, hen they do the collective suicide, they were hearing monsters steps approaching, they though it was really the end. And with that fear, well developed by actors and the director, it is understood they could do something so pointless.

I would prefer an end not so mean, perhaps they waited int the car until the monsters or what ever arrived, something not so cruel. But I loved the way this end was done, artistically speaking...

Regards for all of you

Yea Greg is right. I hope to god neither the director or Stephan King ever have kids, if they don't already. If they do they obviously don't have the right connection with them. It is a shame, the books ending would have made me want to see the mist again or maybe even buy it... but this ending makes me never want to see it again!

Movie was entertaining until the end. Basically, no parent would ever shoot their kid dead unless under mortal danger and even then I could never pull the trigger. The end was not realistic of true human nature which is a will to survive. If I am ever stuck in a car with this movies director or Stephen King kindly hand me my bullet please and off yourself, I'll hold out for hope. Dont know what compelled me to come to the Internet and type this as I have never done th is for any other movie I have watched - I guess it just bothered me that much :p

BTW, why the hell didnt they stop and siphon as from the vehicles on the side of the road - seems better to risk a life than take four.

My recommendation is dont bother with this film. And a message to the director... I hope you dont have kids.

Stephen King is a Hack.

I hated the ending! Arghhh after bearing all those sacrifices! at the end they all died? what the hell! I felt bad when I saw how the father killed his son and his 3 companions arghh

I am From Maine and have been a KIng fan for many years. I wasn't exactly expecting fireworks with this film. I think many of the SK's movie adaptations are fair at best. But I have to say, this one was really tacky. It was a cowardly, lazy, oh-so-hollywood, predictable as hell - ending. I, like many others who posted comments, was not expecting a warm & fuzzy 'happy' ending. The book doesn't have a warm and fuzzy ending at all. I was not expecting the ending to so completely contradict the ongoing theme in the rest of the movie. The ending simply did not match the characters. I am supposed to believe that Drayton, after all the shit he goes through, decides to through in the towel 5 minutes after running out of gas??!!! That he would blow away his little kid? ..I could understand if they were reaching the last possible moment of life, maybe.. but Drayton's character through the whole movie, shows a guy who fight for life, protects people. When did he turn into a p-ssy? Did I miss something.

Unlike other posters, I am not necessarily rocked by the fact that a kid gets killed. Look at SK's portfolio of work. Lots of kids bite it in his many stories. I just thought the ending was a cheap, stereotypical dumbass ending, meant to give the audience one last 'scare'. Really pathetic.

And honestly, the music they were playing during the last several minutes of the movie was the WORST shit I've ever heard. It did not fit with the movie at all.

To the person who commented that SK should have died in his accident (because you don't like the quality of hi writing anymore). You are a fucking moron and should be taken out into the street and put out of your misery. Not liking someone's changing/evolving work is really not an adequate reason to wish death upon them. I think SK's work has changed a little since he was hit by a car, but I don't think he's turned into the bitter bastard that you paint him to be. Just my opinion.

Everybody here makes good points. Peckish says a lot when he points the message out. But the problem was that the movie was not a heavy message movie like "Forrest Gump" but instead it was a monster movie. Why try to send such a deep and sophisticated message in a movie that was previously all action?
Also, the obvious point of the movie was about hope, and how the human race will do anything to hold on to it. All of the other survivors in the shopping center had lost hope so they clung to anything, in this case the crazy womans religion. But the hero defied that and brought a band of followers with him to seek a new hope.
The father is so loving the whole time, but (don't read anymore if you don't want it spoiled) at the end he suddenly drops all of his values and gives up. The whole movie he protects his son to the brink of death, then just decides he doesn't give a damn anymore? I mean, he is just a simple artist, but from the very beginning he his made into a hero who will do anything to save others, especially his son. But at the end of the movie, instead of trying to make it further, he gives up in the presence of no danger what so ever?
The director obviously wasn't a parent or else he would have known that a parent cannot kill their own child in the face of any threat. Maybe if there was absolutely NO hope left and the monsters were about to rip the kid apart it would be understandable, but the father is just like "well we are out of gas... lets play Russian roulette?" I am sorry but no way in hell would that have ever happened.
For you people who think there was "no hope what so ever" maybe this will help you... You have a gun with 4 bullets in it. You are in a car. Your car is in the middle of an angry/hungry lion pit. Now you have two, maybe 3, choices. One: try to wait it out ( probably wont work) Two: make a run for it to hang on to the possibility that you might actually survive out there. or Three: lose all hope and somehow find the way to muster up the courage to kill your OWN SON the only thing you have left in this world, even though you couldn't even muster up the courage to take one less shot.
Now before you pick, also keep in mind you jsut fought your way here by killing a giant tentacle monster with an axe to save some kid who you don't really like. You then proceeded to beat to death after lighting on fire, a mini dragon. You dive to keep your son from being killed by said dragons. You lead a search party into a possible (and what turned out to be a death chamber) to get supplies for a man who will die anyway. You persuade a bunch of people to go on a trip, previously tried for and failed by your friends (who faced horrible deaths.) and finally you fought off an angry mob from killing your son... with a stick.
So now, instead of doing this seemingly small feat for you, you give up, wake your son up, shoot him in the face without saying anything, shoot the hot girl who wants to bang you, kill the cool old lady, and kill some poor old guy. All just because you didn't want to wait and see what would happen if you tried to wait it out for a couple of minutes, or maybe even make a run for it... If you pick Three, may god have mercy on your soul.
Now personally, I loved the movie a LOT. Up until the very end I couldn't wait to tell everyone about it. I have never read Stephen Kings books, but I occasionally write books of my own. The movie was great and the father was a great character, but talk about building him the whole movie just to make him commit an action that goes against all of what he stands for! Great, the guy we like gets f***** why? Why punish the hero for being a hero, that was just hard to watch? I do not know the original ending, but I would have been pleased with the dad taking the survivors out at the last second to die with their hope, and either have them get surrounded with beasts, forcing him to kill his own son, or to have them about to be eaten, and the dad about to kill his son to keep his promise, but then the rescue party's come.
I simply would have preferred ANYTHING other than what i was given. O.k, so I didn't expect it until he grabbed the gun off of the hood, but was it really worth it? Taking a great story and crushing its potential just to "shock" some people? It would have been great to see him live to send the message: "those who don't give up hope live, but people like the crazy woman and her followers embraced death and so they received it."
So that is what I think... I am not a professional on anything. I am not a connoisseur of literature and cinema. But I am simply giving you my point of view as a regular movie-goer, and maybe that was the point of view that this ending needed. (Also, I would have loved to see some marines tear up some beasties at the end to sort of redeem themselves for the whole mess in the first place. I kind of thought I was going to see that after the movie took a special note on the many national guardsmen headed into town. Hoo-rah?)

Little late here but I have to comment....

Yikes! Let me start of by saying the ending was great. Why the hell do you haters out there think Stephen King loved it so much? Because it ruined the movie? Because it went against his vision and message? Wait, perhaps I'm just not putting things into perspective.

After all, King now sucks and the director and everyone else out there that can appreciate the ending just don't get it. lol.

THE ENDING IS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL MESSAGES OF HOPE EVERY PUT TO FILM.

Sorry for the caps but that is the main point of my message. It is a stark and powerful warning of what happens when you give up. Because hope is always there. Even if you can't see it because of the "mist". It is a metaphor for not giving up. Why do you think the old man said "nobody could say we didn't give it a shot"? (I'm paraphrasing). Because that was the folly. Just 'trying" is not always good enough. You have to never loose faith. That was the point of all the religious talk too. It all ties together nicely.

Perhaps it is a lesson we don't want to see, so we make up all this shallow B.S. at why the ending sucked and how King has lost it....such irony is to hold such a hopless attitude.

I read the story which I have remembered for years. I am sorry to say I watched the film. To those who admire the film, well, to each their own, I guess. I thought the movie sucked.

Why did it suck? First, it was pretty dull. Yeah, ooohhh a melting tentacle. Eeks. Then, the characters were as fake as cardboard. A little more boredom... OOH! Some religious stereotype bashing... Always easy and fun. Finally, the cardboard characters kill themselves because they fear big bugs. Yeah, the loving dad kills his own kid... Give me an f'in break...

What a stupid movie with an equally idiotic ending to match.

I feel better now. The movie stunk. The ending was cowardly. But that's Follywood for ya. You know, the latest King books I've read have been mediocre at best. The last one I threw away, because half way through it was just plain dumb.

King's hit by a car, which sucks, but then he turns into a bitter, crappy writer ever since. Go figure. King's dead. Might as well have been killed by the accident, so far as the entertainment world is concerned. Sounds cold, but he's cold, so it fits.

Anyhow, I feel better because the original story can''t compare to the Hollywood and "new King". Old King = OK. New King = Junk.

WHY NORM????? Why couldnt the tentical grab the hick and leave the innocent adolecent alone? Ya teens are suppost to be stupid but the hick should have gotten b*tch slaped. Ok so they should have dragged the ending a little farther then five minutes then bang, headshot, fatality. If they wanted to use this type of ending they could have had them sitting there waiting for death to come and then blown there brains out. I was hoping for more of a, creature jumps on hood of the car stares him down and just as he's about to take it like a man some army guy steps in and blows it to bits. After that i could deem the screaming in agony over shooting the rest of them, it would be more of why couldn't it just kill me so i dont have to deal with this sh*t.

Anywho great post by lots of ya and keep up with the thought provoking ideas.

Why didn't he turn the radio on lol, mighta heard something if the mist was clearing that fast....Just a thought

still more evidence that blogs are worthless

The ending was not shocking at all sadly. It was a really good movie, but I loved Billy! It's only a movie so it's not worth getting to upset over, but I wish Billy didn't die!

This movie isn't about how one feels about the protagonist. This is about the disparity of the presented character (protagonist); i.e., how he changes from hopeful to desparate after such a short time period. Although the ending was abhorrent to me, it didn't make sense that an individual who's ideal was to persist until a specified time (running out of gas) would give up in such a futile manner.
All the proselityzing (spelling?) from the freakish Christian zealot was an obvious placement/juxtaposition. It seemed idiosynchratic to end the movie as it did: with no danger present and a supreme sense of futility without the presence of danger. It was too contrived and could have been a greater piece (of art) without the ending that was presented.
It could have been an amazing work as an adaptation. However...
BTW, where is "Strawberry Spring"? I've been waiting for that for years! Have I missed it?

Just finished watching this movie at home. I was totally in to it, I didn't read the book, I'm not a fan of Kings works but I like a good story and he spins some good ones for sure. The ending though, makes very little sense, and seems more like "ha, bet ya didn't see that totally senseless ending comeing did ya" thing instead of a way to evoke emotion. Yes I know he promised his son that the monsters wouldn't get him. Is his word more important then even giving his son a couple more hours of hope? I mean come on, they had just came to a stop, it wasn't like they were there for days, no food, no water, dieing already of dehydration. It was just pointless and done for "shock and awe" value, which is fine, but it was done so pointlessly. The main char fought tooth and nail to keep people alive for three days and in 5 min, after he runs out of gas, but still inside a secure vehicle, he decides it's no longer worth it to keep trying, and shoots his own child? And not to mention, totally predictable ending after that senseless bit, like some other posters, I turned to my wife and said "watch, now he'll get rescued". So the only thing the director did was momentarily give the illusion that he was being original and unpredictable, when really, we knew what was comeing after that. The only thing it did for me is that I am going to remember that director/screenplay dude and stay the hell away cause that was one destination where the trip wasn't worth it. Cause I really don't want to waste my time investing 90min in a good movie only to wish I had never picked it up in first place because the ending was a vanity-riddin, pointless attempt to "not be mainstream". Maybe he has some kinda complex, like criminals that keep doing things in an attempt to get caught. They know they are doing wrong, they just need someone to catch them in the act, and stop them, cause they can't stop themselves, and it will make everything better. I'm not a filmmaker, I don't know how this guy or any other filmmaker thinks, but I really don't know how he though this would be a superb addition to the movie. Maybe Kings influence got to him, maybe it was a passing thought and King was like "OMG, that is brilliant, do it" and the director felt compelled to after that. I watched the other two movies mentioned above and the endings were nothing like this, maybe hanks and freeman have more pull than jane, ok scratch that, hanks and freeman have way more pull but jane is still a great actor. I just don't know how after investing that much time in to his character, that he was convinced that his character would be capable of that in such a short time frame(cause I can see it being plausible after a couple days or after they get surronded by a ton creatures). This is the first time in a long time I have bothered chimeing in on my view of a movie but this was so, "umm what the hell was that crap?" at the end I felt compelled. Do what ya want, this is 95% great stuff with other 5% being someones ego trip that only a handful will get. Good for you, thanks for comeing out, buh-bye now.

I read The Mist like 20 years ago. I have waited all this time for the movie. I knew the timing had to be just right for it's production, when the technology could fully encompass the frightfulness of King's creatures and his storyline. I have loved horror movies since I was a kid. I loved the Mist.
But I hated the ending.
And I'll tell you why:
I literally had tears in my eyes for the grief stricken father who just murdered his young son, who he promised to protect. Yes, the ending was very thought provoking, suspenseful, unusual, surprising (although I did say aloud as he prepared to shoot them, "Watch, somehow he'll get saved now...") etc., but there is one fact of the matter that I have yet to read from anyone else. No one has addressed the issue of the absence of justification. The adults knew what was about to happen to them. They accepted it and welcomed it, choosing to die by his hand rather than be eaten alive by the creatures. However, his son awakens just in time to see his father aiming a gun at his head. No goodbyes or apologies. Just BLAM. Did you see the look of utter shock and fear on the boy's face? He died wondering how and why his own father was shooting him. That's plain disgusting.
He should have asked him to turn away and then surprised him, did it while he slept, or even explained that he was just sending him to a better place, and that he'd meet him there in a jiffy and that his mother was there already waiting.
It still would have been very sad, being rescued after that, but at the very least, he would not have allowed his son to die thinking he was a murderer.
And, how long do you suppose he lasted after that anyway? A day? A week? He surely would still have taken his own life after killing those poor people and then being rescued. Just sixty more seconds!
It seemed like there used to be an unspoken sacredness about killing very young children (not teenagers) in films, however lately, after seeing Hostel 2, 28 Weeks Later and I Am Legend (Yes, I still loved all three), it appears we as a society have become very callused and that in itself is more frightening than any horror movie.

I agree with Branden, I don't think the ending fits the character. I will have to read the book now for the original ending. I don't think any parent could write and ending like that. I could understand if there were creatures attacking the car, but that wasn't happening. They run out of gas--boom 10 seconds later give up??!!!!!!!!???

I did not like the ending. After watching "I am Legend" and "No Country for Old Men", I am starting to feel like Hollywood wants us to leave movies feeling like crap lately. Heck, I would have preferred a bunch of spider-things jumping on the car and dragging them off to what they had there. Horror films went through a period of not knowing how to end for a while, and now they are going with "as depressing as possible."

I don't need happy endings, but I do want ending that don't make me say "GAH! WHY????"

I wont be watching movies like that twice.