Season One of The Walking Dead is just days away from concluding. The show has been a runaway hit for AMC. It’s ratings since the pilot premiered on Halloween night has tripled the numbers posted by AMC’s other critically-acclaimed hits like Mad Men and Breaking Bad. It’s showrunner in Frank Darabont with veteran Hollywood producer Gale Anne Hurd the show had the firepower to allow a basic cable network to take a chance on a tv series based on a long-running comic book series about survivors in a post-zombie apocalypse world.
With Season 2 already approved for a 13-episode pick-up the only question now is whether the show will be able to take the foundations laid by Darabont and his writers this first season and continue to improve on the product. This question may have just taken on a certain significance as Deadline has reported that Frank Darabont has fired all the writers of this first season and plans on writing the second season by himself with freelance writers being brought in to work on each episode’s scripts.
For a show that has garnered great reviews from critics and fans alike, not to mention ratings that it’s sister shows on the network could only wish for, this change in how the upcoming season would be written might just put the shadow of worry over it’s growing legion of fans.
For some, this news might seem like a panic move designed to placate the vocal minority of blog reviewers who have pointed out how the show’s writing didn’t pass muster after a powerful pilot episode. How the series’ first season seem to have a Jekyll and Hyde tone to it. One episode being great then the next just so-so. Could the negative criticism (some justified and others just criticism for criticism’s sake) have reached the heads of AMC and the show’s producers and a decision for a change was made off the cuff.
This report, if confirmed by Darabont and the network as true, does mean Darabont becomes the sole writer for the show with hired freelancers doctoring finished scripts then it could be a blessing for the show moving forward. There will now be a singular voice that will dictate how the show goes forward. Some will think this may just ruin the quality of the show not having a staff of established writers on-board like the first season had, but it’s those very same writers who the show’s detractors have been blaming for the show’s missed opportunity to create a brave new show on tv.
Also, it’s not such a rare thing to have a show written by one individual and for a series that’s really one long story with some very complicated subplots thrown. Having that one writer could keep things from getting too confusing. It could also solve the up and down nature of the episode quality.
AMC, hasn’t stated that the show will not have a staff of writers. There’s a chance that Darabont will hire both freelance and series writers to help smooth the transition from Season One to Season Two. The good thing is that the network and the producers pretty much have 11 months to decide on exactly how to proceed.
Source: Deadline
Through the Shattered Lens 
Interesting find, Arleigh. I’d say this is a change for the better, but we will only be sure once the next season starts up in a year or so. Solving the up and down from show to show would be great, as some are amazing and then the next one is flat. Hopefully this is for the best and turns out more Shawshank than Mist.
LikeLike
I think the up and down nature of the writing has to be due to the material itself. Most of these writers working with Darabont and Kirkman are not genre writers. I know a writer is suppose to be able to write whatever’s asked of them, but sometimes not being familiar with a particular genre and how to work within it could make a writer do some guess work that ends up sounding flat and forced.
I think what will happen is Darabont will end up being the main writer for the show but will retain a mixture of regular series and freelance writers to further smooth out the rough edges on his script drafts.
LikeLike
The idea of Darabont as the main writer for this show worries me. The Shawshank Redemption, for instance, is one of the worst movies ever made. History will prove me right on this. However, my bigger fear is that Darabont will end up pulling a stunt like “Tonight’s episode was penned by Stephen King…” Because, seriously, Stephen King’s an insecure whore.
LikeLike
Well, our differences aside concerning The Shawshank Redemption, I actually think Darabont has a better handle on both the dramatic and horror aspect of the material. As KO has mentioned he did pen the adaptation of Stephen King’s “The Mist” which plays out very similar to a zombie siege tale.
The one concern I have with just having one writer is will he be able to put the time in. A project on the film side of things may come up and he suddenly has to hand off to another writer who may or may not know fully what Darabont has in mind for the show. I do think that having the show’s original creator in Kirkman as one of the executive producers should keep things focused on the basic outline of the material source.
LikeLike
The problem with only having one writer is what I call the Sorkin Syndrome — i.e., eventually you’re going to end up with a case where everyone on the show sounds, thinks, and acts the same way. Which is okay if your show only has one central character but if you’re doing an ensemble piece, it gets pretty annoying. So, I guess the question is whether or not Darabont intends to make the show primarily about Rick or if he wants to do it more as an ensemble piece. Personally, I prefer the ensemble approach.
(That’s also another problem I have with Stephen “Wanna-be Dickens” King — every character he’s ever created sounds and acts like the same know-it-all jerk from Maine regardless of the situation.)
Add to that, Darabont’s adaptation of the Mist essentially ruined some very good sourve material.
LikeLike
So things have changed.
I would say three out of these first five were excellent, with the other two (2 and 3) being good. That’s a good start.
Consistent with my past comments, I would rather the Darabont writing be more “Mist”. I think it is one of the best horror films of the past decade. I don’t remember anything being wrong with “Shawshank” (other than, of course, its source material’s insecure whore of an author [?]), but the style of “The Mist” would seem more appropriate.
I am quite surprised and pleased to read about the ratings. I hope it’s not just initial curiosity, like a movie’s opening weekend box office sales.
I have the impression that Darabont has a very stark sense of possibility and reality. I think that should serve the series well. If he provides the core concepts, but has other sets of eyes and perspectives to hone or augment his ideas, the series may manifest the essence of his style, but also some twists and conceits that he wouldn’t have thought of, which could still keep it fresh. If he hits a plateau, he can hand off completely to someone else, but still edit.
If I were in Darabont’s current position, I would have both genre and non-genre writers on board. The nons might not be as likely to regurgitate clichéd or overused themes or events, and might come up with original ideas that a genre writer would not have. Darabont can refine or reject at will, if deemed necessary.
I hope we don’t have to wait 11 months to begin to find out.
LikeLike
Yes, Stephen King is an insecure whore for the following reasons:
1) He’ll write a cover blurb for anything as long as he gets paid for the endorsement (hence, he’s a whore).
2) He feels the need to write long, strident essays where he condescends to the reader with comments like “constant reader” and brags about what a fucking badass he thinks he is (hence, he’s insecure)
3) He’s still bitching about getting hit by that car as if he’s the only person in the world who has ever suffered loss and despite the fact that the driver of the car has already committed suicide largely as a result of all the negative publicity and the fact that King was bringing it up every chance he could get while no one, of course, ever thought to ask, “Say, Steverino, why were you jaywalking in the first place?” Instead, it was all “This man hit Stephen King so let’s hound him to death.” (Hence, King’s an insecure whore.)
LikeLike
Ultimately, the show is about Rick’s journey. The comic and the show will have the supporting characters grow as well especially in regards to Rick’s attempt to lead the group.
While The Mist did leave certain threads from the novella out the overall product was, for me, good enough to place the film in my top ten for that year. I actually had it at 2.
The last 20 minutes of the film pretty much made up and more for any missteps along the way.
LikeLike
Oh man, and the ending is what utterly killed that movie for me. Some of the film was great, like the spikes popping out of the tentacle was an awesome “ooo crap!” moment, the idea that these weren’t monsters but simply animals from another dimension was a great twist. The lawyer jerk of a neighbor was a nice antagonist, but as soon as he left the religious chick really bothered me. Why wasn’t she killed off by the mosquitoes that killed others? Never explained. Extremely infuriating to see that mind-set get away with it and gain control of the group as a whole.
But they get out and the main guy mercy-kills off the others, tough luck on his part, but still within the realm of possibility. If the movie ended right here it would have been good and I would have considered the time invested in the film worthy.
…But then we see the chick that left when everyone else was getting killed riding away safely on the military truck. Apparently she used her magical Wizard powers to escape certain death while blinded in the mist. Why did she live and no one else? Because she was a woman or something? Is that why the religious chick lived, too? No, because then the innocent cashier girl wouldn’t have died or the main character’s wife. Inconsistent writing or just plain gaping plot holes all over that ending.
Maybe the ideas were based upon something in the novella, and maybe fans of that might have gotten it, but based entirely on what the movie offered no reasons were given. Cut off the last ten minutes of that film and it would have been “okay” to “good.” The ending wasn’t courageous because it attempted to be different as others have reviewed it. It was bad because it insulted the viewer’s memory and intelligence while still trying to play up the dramatic “oh! If only he listened to the nameless woman that had no baring on the rest of the story!”
As it is quite similar in my eyes, here is a quote from Confused Matthew on his review of Saw’s ending: “Guess what guys? That’s not a twist! That’s just something we didn’t have a fair shake at figuring out.”
In my opinion, The Mist’s ultimate flaw is its ending. The film has several minor problems here and there, but until the credits roll they had a chance to be dealt with. Sadly this never happens, as the ending we are forced to witness kills off any potential saving grace that it might have been able to pull off.
LikeLike
That ending wasn’t in the original novella, which just ended with our main character escaping into the Mist and unsure of what else was out there. Not a happy ending but one that worked very well for the story. The film’s ending just seemed to me, to kinda be like, “Look! How ironic!” I like dark endings but I don’t like darkness just for the sake of being dark. You’re right — if the film had ended with the “mercy” killings as opposed to the “ironic” reveal then it would have been a fairly good movie.
LikeLike
BAH!!! 🙂
We three will just have to agree to disagree since I totally bought into that ending. I like my darkness to be as dark as darkly as possibly dark. 😀
LikeLike
Haha, it’s all good Arleigh. Everyone has their own tastes and opinions. I know plenty of people who both like a specific movie while they know it either does not make sense or know it’s cheesy/etc. If you like the ending, you keep on likin’ it, bud.
Thank-you for sharing in my opinion on the ending of The Mist, Lisa. I was somewhat nervous about the outcome of my post, as quite a few fans of the TV Walking Dead series also love The Mist and I wasn’t too sure how my views on the movie were going to be accepted. >.>; (Note: Our opinion on the matter is tied with theirs. Based on their adoration of the movie, we either have to sacrifice a small child or find plot-controlled soldiers to best their opinions. Unless we can rummage up small children soldiers… that’s the ticket…)
LikeLike
Encrazed Crafts, you ignorant slut (Just kidding. Just a percentage-play old TV reference) –
Your assessment of “The Mist” illustrates the nature of horror psychology. I have seen others decry the ending, because they didn’t like the way it made them feel. It was shocking and unsettling, and it stays with you. That’s why I, and apparently Arleigh, like it. I also like grim zombie movies, as opposed to unscary guns-a-blazin’ camp romps like “Zombieland.” It’s a matter of perception and sensibility.
If you are an optimist, the ending shakes your faith and disrupts your sense of things ultimately working out (or at least being confident that you are doing the “right thing”, even if it is difficult). If you are a pessimist (or as I call us, realists), the ending confirms what you already suspected or knew. If you someone who is somewhere in between, the ending could be both satisfying and disturbing.
You indicate that you also dislike the ending because it is somehow implausible or contradictory, or because it wasn’t foreshadowed. I disagree with that. You seem to be demanding that the film be structured as a whodunit mystery would – you want the opportunity to anticipate the ending by picking up and putting together the clues. That’s not what this is about. But not seeing the end coming doesn’t mean that it is implausible or inconsistent with that which preceded it. (If you want to see a movie with a rip-off ending, check out “High Tension”. Now that one doesn’t hold up, no matter what some proponents may say.)
As for Mrs. Carmody (the religious zealot), I think you may have missed some of the possibilities presented by her character. Why wasn’t she killed by the mosquitoes? It’s open to interpretation, and intentionally so. Annoying (and dangerous) as she was, could she have been right, after all? Was she spared because she was righteous? She had wanted to sacrifice David’s son, to save the others, but was thwarted. But then things didn’t turn out well for the protagonists, Coincidence? You decide. Or just keep wondering. Some horror fans like that.
And, one of my favorite scenes was when the store manager shot Mrs. Carmody to save David’s son. In shock at what he had done, he said flatly, “I killed her.” David calmly replies. “Thank you, Ollie”. It was startling and cathartic and funny at the same time. Weren’t you glad to see her go? But maybe there were more ramifications to that act…or maybe not.
The revelation that the mother from early in the film has survived with her family, as evidenced by their presence on the army convoy, is not a plot hole. It is a mechanism to portray the existential dilemma of the main character. He acted based on what he had seen and experienced. But his perspective was cloaked by the mist. He was made to feel that the other-worldly creatures had taken over the planet, and were inescapably coming for them. This concept was once again very effectively reinforced by the scene where the group in the SUV feels giant impact tremors, which begin to rock the vehicle. They then see a massive, massive creature, with legs like trees, walking toward them, and then over them. It is so big that it ignores them. They are insignificant to it. If creatures of this scale are extant, what hope could there be for humanity?
Do we really need to know the details of that mother’s successful reunion with her family? Remember, she left relatively early in the event. Maybe she was simply able to make it through the mist before it had expanded to the extent that it eventually would. Maybe if others had acted at that time, some of them might have survived, others, perhaps not. Whatever the case, there is no reason to believe that the mother could not have made it home, at least at that point.
The film succeeds both as a creature-feature and an existential exploration of human nature. There were monsters on both fronts. The “who are the real monsters” theme is not original, but is well-presented in “The Mist”.
There is a palpable sense of ambiguity in this film. In a different way, another of my favorites, “Let The Right One In”, uses ambiguity as a storytelling device. That made the film interesting and memorable for me. But that is not the same thing as inconsistency. And it is not for everyone.
I really liked “The Mist”, and I think the ending was the best part. The main character made an agonizing decision, and due to a confluence of circumstances, he (and we) learned that it was the wrong one. That is very realistic. And dark (hail, my brother ion darkness, Arleigh). The image of David coming to this realization is powerful and haunting.
Damn good film.
LikeLike
I didn’t like the ending, not because it wasn’t expected, but because it wasn’t plausible. They left to repair the window and arrive at the department store. The mist crept on them just as they got there. A guy with a bloody nose screams not to go outside, and another guy is heard yelling in fright/pain/death beyond the glass. Then the bag-boy gets killed by giant friggin’ tentacles. Then a biker guy goes outside to see if it is safe by attaching a rope around his waist, only to have that drug back to the store covered in blood and his lower torso.
-Bloody Nose could either be from an alien, or clumsiness. So that is neutral.
-A guy screaming in pain/fright/for his life is clearly on the ‘oh-crap-ometer’ and is solidly in the ‘danger’ area.
-A dude getting pulled away by not only a giant tentacled animal, but one that can sprout spikes as well, that is double-plus-ungood, my friend. Danger area.
-A brave biker guy reduced to half of his former self: Danger area.
But she made it out right as rain. /groan
This is just a shade away from becoming Disney ending, by the way. “The scared mother risking the strange unknown, but in the end saves the day! She finds her kids, lives on for two additional days without any other training, supplies, assistance, or visibility before finally making it back to the city with magical military men that could not seem to help the day this terror started, but boy-howdy are the lovable gas-masked clad men helpful when the writer deems it so now!”
There is no meaning, no goal, no moral here. It is all, from start to finish, completely random happenstance. A storm happens to break the window. They happen to get stuck in a store with his nearly-hateful neighbor. The mosquito happens to avoid the psycho chick. They happen to pick up the gun which falls conveniently close to the main character. They happen to be one bullet shy so one person will have to live. He kills them all, and then the military happens to show up a minute later. And the chick just happens to be with them.
Bravo, Darabont. Bravo. Might as well add in an 80’s superhero narrator to it all. “And *by the power of his amulet* he turns the gun into a flying snake which can transcend time which runs on smiles! Forcing a happy expression upon his tired visage, he flies back into the past to not only save his child and friends, but possess another hack writer to pen “The Happening” which ends up even worse than this ‘film.’ “
LikeLike
Ummmmmm….?
I enjoyed your sarcastic comments, but I think they are largely off the mark.
“There is no meaning, no goal, no moral here. It is all, from start to finish, completely random happenstance.”
Well, not exactly. There are some at least implied possible explanations for the events, and depending on your interpretation, a possible moral (as related to the cause of the invasion). But again, it is ambiguous. It’s supposed to be.
But there is some randomness and happenstance, just like there is in real life. And those events made it more difficult for the main character to know what was going to happen, and what course of action to take. Just like in real life.
I think I adequately addressed some of the criticisms you just raised (again) – (i.e. – psycho-bitch and the mosquito; mother making it home). I don’t understand most of the others.
I think your IF / THEN logic is flawed. Example: Maybe the creatures were full for a little while – they had eaten all of those people you referenced. Or maybe countless other explanations.
As for random occurrences, have you been living on Earth long? That’s life. But I don’t think the ones you cite are particularly outlandish –
“A storm happens to break the window.”
This strains your credulity?
“They happen to get stuck in a store with his nearly-hateful neighbor.”
Didn’t the main character give the neighbor a ride to the store, hence their mutual presence and subsequent stuckness therein?
“The mosquito happens to avoid the psycho chick.”
A possible reason was implied. If that is not the reason, then yes, why not? Maybe it didn’t like her perfume.
“They happen to pick up the gun which falls conveniently close to the main character.”
You mean when the storekeeper dropped the gun in the parking lot after getting sliced apart while being suspended in the air? Picking the gun up was purposeful. As for where the gun landed, it fell close to the main character because he was close to the creature and the storekeeper. Unless the creature had had the presence of mind to take the gun away from the storekeeper, and fling it out into the mist, the gun would have had to have landed close to the main character.
“They happen to be one bullet shy so one person will have to live.”
What if there had been one more bullet? Wouldn’t that have bothered you, as well? “They just happen to have the exact number of bullets they need.” Here we have at least two possibilities, and they would each have pissed you off as being too convenient to the plot. Poor Frank never stood a chance when writing the screenplay.
“He kills them all, and then the military happens to show up a minute later.”
Yes. That kind of timing happens all the time. People give up when, unbeknownst to them, they were on the verge of success.
“And the chick just happens to be with them.”
It’s a small town. And survivors had likely congregated in common locations. Chanced are, she’s gonna be on that convoy.
I have no idea what’s going on in your final paragraph.
I’m just having some fun with you, and probably annoying all concerned. It’s cool if you don’t like the film, but while it may have some flaws, I honestly don’t think most of the things you cite qualify as such. I would suggest watching it agin, with an eye out for some implications and possibilities you may have missed, but given your animus for Darabont, that may not be good for your mental health.
LikeLike
Your last line did make me laugh, I gotta admit -_^
First off, I’m not being sarcastic or even spiteful. This is all logic-based, so if you took anything personal please do not. I dislike the movie with a passion because of the ending. I do not dislike others who like the ending, no matter how dreadful I feel that it was.
You suggestion of him killing himself off at the end actually would have been *perfect* and I am a bit miffed I did not think of it myself. That ending would allow you guys to enjoy your ‘dark darkity dark-dark’ ending and I can at least enjoy not wasting two hours of my life due to a rushed production. (As that is the only tangible reason I can think of Darabont even suggesting “If everyone ran away as fast as possible at the first possible moment they all might have lived! …Just not if they went to the main character’s house. …Or any place outside of the city. …Or in the city. Actually, they only would have lived if they all followed that glorified extra of a scared woman back at the market. But doing so would have changed her intended path… you know what? Just watch the movie and like it.”)
I liked the movie while I watched it, in case that didn’t get highlighted above. While watching I even noticed that it was not as bad as others were saying. I liked that everything tidied up fairly nicely towards the end, even though a few good people got warped or killed off. I’d rather the teacher chick and the guy hooked up and raised the son with the old folks as company when everything got sorted out, as everything was pointing in that direction. Not because it would have been a happy ending, but it was the one the movie was suggesting to the audience the entire last hour, further compounding it after his wife was found dead.
If he had just enough bullets to shoot off everyone, then himself, it would have still been a good ending. Much like Shawshank here, it would not have been a happy ending, but a *good* ending. Compared to what crap we were given, in my opinion, I would much rather see the main guy walk around a bit in a emotional state after killing everyone off before finally calming down, shedding a tear as he wiped his son’s hair away from his face, then blasting himself off-camera; his body falling away from the vehicle and you can see his boots either pointing up or flopping to either side.
Camera stays focused on his boots and lower legs as the smoke settles. The distant noise in the mist grows louder, until the lights of the military truck are seen and a whole platoon roll past as the camera pans out and the music dons it’s crescendo and just as the thought of “man, they almost made it!” forms the proper synapses in your brain; the credits roll as the screen fades to black.
*That* would have actually been a good ending. I’d say it could be considered cliche, but I don’t know of anything else ending in a similar way other than Romeo and Juliet.
The problem with the ending we were actually given, was it was so random it immediately pulled me out of any sense of immersion and right into “wow, that’s really $%^ing convenient.” And that is what my distaste for this film boils down to. The ending was so monumentally bad that every stitch that formed the seam which held the movie together was instantly broken because of it, opening up every minute problem within the film to be fully examined and clearly noticeable. A decent ending would have assuaged mine wrath and let me overlook the flaws as the ends justified the means, as it were. As I was not given one, I note the flaws as I see them.
Other ideas that could have led to a much better ending:
-The military could have shown up just before he killed anyone.
-They could have shown up after he killed off himself, as noted above.
-He could have gotten out of the car, shot through the side window to kill everyone in the back seat with one bullet, and then used the last one on himself.
-Hell, they could have kept everything exactly the same, just lose the random chick and her two kids from the truck and it would have been fine.
-End it with them driving off into the unknown just after seeing the giant stomping Cthulhu. I’d rather make up my own ending than be expected to digest the one we ended up with.
My final paragraph was emphasising that I can take random occurrences to a degree, but that has limits. The realm of believability has a different threshold for everyone, and mine withheld throughout the movie until the very end when it crapped on my face and expected praise like a poorly housebroken pet. My suggestion of the superhero narrator was implying that The Mist was wielding a magical amulet that let anything be possible precisely when the plot required it to do so. If you saw Spider-Man 3, first let me give you my condolences, and second you know what I’m talking about when the grenades that vaporized people and buildings only slightly damaged Harry’s face when it blew up POINT BLANK against his cheek. Again this happened when the symbiont separated from Eddie Brock in the end, it suddenly morphed from being human-sized to about twenty feet tall and over half that wide. But the ending of that steaming pile was hardly it’s main problem.
I want to touch down on one final thing, though. Good movies use random events properly. Random happenings keep the viewer from guessing what will happen next, keeping it fresh as you go along. There is a huge difference between random and contrived. In this case, the tree breaking the window, them getting stuck in the market, etc, would be random; believable. Most of the other examples I listed previously can all be classified as contrived. This is what I meant by everything just “happening” in the movie. The mosquito doesn’t kill the second protagonist. Of course it doesn’t. Of course the morons don’t turn off the lights in time during the attack. Of course it took ten minutes to beat down a flaming and wounded monster. Of course, of course, of course.
A crappy streak of luck isn’t uncommon in life. I’ll give you that. But would you want to watch a movie about a guy with a crummy life? I’m not judging, you could and that’s fine with me. But The Mist *was not* billed as a “crappy life story.” It *was* billed as a horror and I expected to see a horror. While the ending was in fact horrible, it was not quite the definition of “horror” everyone else in the industry uses to describe movies. (I do not know of anyone that went into The Mist hoping the main character would get tortured for tortures sake with no payoff. His friends are dead. His wife is dead. His son is dead by his own hand. “Oh! If only he listened to that poor extra! She could have led him to freedom!” There is no thought process there on the writer’s end. Maybe he did other sections better than King, but the ending will not win any awards from me. Well, maybe a Golden Raspberry.)
This is not in anyway intended to persuade any one’s opinion. This opinion is mine. If you share it, or disagree with it, I will not be offended. I am merely stating what I found wrong in the movie, the process as to how I came to that conclusion, and reasons as to why I continue to feel that way about this film.
/wall of text
LikeLike
Before we say any more, I think it is only fair that we let the faithful readers of Through The Shattered Lens know that film reviewers Arleigh and Lisa Marie Bowman have been officially replaced by KO and Encrazed Crafts. Their previous work is appreciated, but their services will no longer be required. They are, however, welcome to add their comments to our official postings. (You’re welcome, guys.)
Now, then, back to business. (I really like my new job.) I was sincere about my compliment of your sarcasm. I did not take offense, and I realize that you are sincere in your feelings about the film. But you use sarcasm to express some of your points, and I am a big fan of that. That’s one thing, among many, that I like about Ms. Bowman’s (my predecessor) reviews.
I addressed, I believe, all of the incidences of inconsistency, implausibility, or randomness you once again alleged. So I will assume that you either unconvinced by my contentions, or perhaps didn’t read them. So I won’t repeat my comments.
I do suspect that many folks who dislike the ending do so because they don’t like the way it makes them feel. They may be able to accept the mercy killings, but not the idea that they were not necessary. The “If only they had waited…” angle pisses them off. But, like it or not, such could be the choices that are made under such conditions, as could the consequences. It may be frustrating, but it’s not implausible.
With acknowledgement of your non-persuasion disclaimer, I will say, that despite all of your writing, I do not feel any different about the ending, or the randomness of events in the film. Clearly, the same is true for you after reading my diatribes. And that is probably as it should be. Having a personal perception that is unique to oneself is part of the enjoyment of watching a film. But I have enjoyed the analysis.
LikeLike
I loved one thing about the ending of the Mist and that was “The Host of Seraphim” from Dead Can Dance. If you’ve ever seen Lamberto Bava’s Demons 2, you’ll find another effective use of Dead Can Dance’s music when it is used to score a scene of a bunch of posessed teenagers coming down a hallway.
Otherwise, I didn’t care much for The Mist. But, to be honest, art is always in the eye of the beholder and that’s one thing of the main things I love about this site. This is the only place on the Internet where I can talk about how much I hated Avatar without having to worry about a hit squad being dispatched to track me down.
A fair question would be — did I dislike the Mist because of what was happening on screen or did I dislike it because I saw it with a guy who had all the personality of a cardboard cut-out? I mean, he kinda looked like a less pretty version of Zac Efron but oh my God, he simply had no personality whatsoever. So, if I had seen the movie with a someone who actually had a personality, would I have better memories of it? Well, I saw Avatar with a guy named Jeff who has more personality than anyone I know and I hated Avatar too. Of course, so did he…
Anyway, my point here is that there is no right, there is no wrong, there’s just the setting of the sun.
LikeLike
You saw it with the wrong person. 🙂
I think certain films work best with an attentive and reactionary audience. I’ve learned in the past that when I go see a film with someone who really doesn’t seem to want to be there then it affects my enjoyment of what I’m watching.
I think if you had seen it with Jeff you probably would’ve liked it a bit more than you do now. Especially if he was into it. 🙂
LikeLike
My goal with people reading and commenting on these reviews and others tidbits posted is that people can agree and disagree without being put down. I’ve been in way too many places where any form of opinion that doesn’t match the site runners or the active commenters end up turning into a flame war.
LikeLike
You both seem to be taking your demotions well.
Seriously, this is a great site and forum. Disagreements, such as they are, can be conducted with a sense of humor and mutual respect, as well as a common enjoyment of cinema (or other media) in general. Please know that that is recognized and appreciated, along with all of the things to which you introduce the readers.
LikeLike
I read what you typed, KO-worker (as we all pulling the reigns, as you mentioned), but I think you see the same scenes differently than I. I still think it comes down to the lynch-pin of an ending: I disliked it and thus saw the movie before it in a negative light, while you enjoyed the ending and what I saw as flaws, you probably think of as quirks or stylistic choices of the creators. Tomato tomato. (That phrase does not quite work at full capacity in text only mediums, sadly.)
If you don’t mind a weak analogy: You love snowflakes as no two are alike, while I dislike them as they lack a sense of order and make things moist in their wake. Same item, two different perspectives, and both are right.
What are we commentating on next, KO? Our two fans are growing restless!
LikeLike
Encrazed Crafts, your little wordpress gravatar picture makes me smile and feel all happy every time I see it. 🙂
LikeLike
We may need to give the servers a day or two to jettison some of their data. I think we may have overloaded them with our lengthy posts on this thread.
LikeLike
Haha, Thank-you, Lisa! This cute little guy is actually one of our creations! He’s sitting besides my desk, well him and a few of his friends. I really need to start throwing these up on my etsy but shipping has changed a good deal from last year with new regulations and what not. I just wanna know the total sum of sending one thing from x to y, and the cheapest way to do it. Dang you, Post Office! Bane of my existence…
Right-o, KO. Just let me know when the servers come back online. It seems their servos could not handle the total mass of our diction. /geeky snorting laugh
LikeLike
Pingback: A Quickie With Lisa Marie: The Host of Seraphim (performed by Dead Can Dance) « Through the Shattered Lens